IMPLICATIONS OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT

IMPLICATIONS OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Assessing the influence of quality management

on employees

March 12, 2009

ELVIRA HEGGE

Faculty of Economics and Business

Specialization Human Resource Management

PREFACE

During my master Human Resource Management I was searching for an interesting subject to study for my master thesis. At my additional job they came up with the opportunity of doing my research for the master thesis at their company. Together with the organization I discussed the areas in which they would like to have done research and also my own ideas were discussed. The thought of doing research in the field of quality management with respect to employees came up.

Writing my master thesis was a period with successes and difficulties. A process from which a learnt definitely a lot; bringing theory into practice, but also persevere and overcome difficulties. I want to thank some people who have been important for me during this period. First of all, of course my supervisor of the university Manda Broekhuis. At her office we discussed my progressions with a cup of tea. Thank you for the feedback, your critical assessments and your guidance. Furthermore I want to thank the second supervisor of the university Karin Prins. Thank you for your feedback.

ABSTRACT

Objective of this research was to gain insight into the implications of a quality management system on the organizational commitment and work autonomy of the employees, which both influence employees’ belief in the system and use of the system. Also a mediating role of organizational commitment and work autonomy was expected. The research was accomplished at the organizations A and B. And with simple and multiple regression analysis hypotheses were tested.

Continuous improvement, and clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities were positively associated with commitment and autonomy. Routinization was negatively associated with commitment and autonomy. Standardization of work processes was not predictive for commitment and autonomy at all. Furthermore use of the quality management system was positively related to both organizational commitment and work autonomy and belief in the system was only positively associated to work autonomy. Regarding mediation, only organizational commitment functioned as a mediator between clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities, and both belief in the QMS and use of the QMS. Work autonomy functioned as a mediator between continuous improvement and use of the system. And work autonomy also functioned as a mediator between clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities, and both belief in the system and use of the system.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1 Quality in business...1 1.2 Research question ...2 2. THEORY ... 4 2.1 Continuous improvement ...4 2.2 Routinization ...5

2.3 Clear description of, and balance between responsibilities and authorities ...5

2.4 Standardization of work processes...7

2.5 Organizational commitment ...8

2.5.1 Continuous improvement and commitment...9

2.5.2 Routinization and commitment...10

2.5.3 Clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities related to commitment ...10

2.5.4 Standardization of work processes and commitment ...11

2.6 Work Autonomy...11

2.6.1 Continuous improvement and autonomy ...12

2.6.2 Routinization and autonomy ...13

2.6.3 Clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities related to autonomy ...13

2.6.4 Standardization of work processes and autonomy...14

2.7 Use of the system and belief in the system...14

3. RESEARCH METHODS... 18

3.1 Quality management at both organizations ...18

3.2 Characteristics of the workforce ...19

3.3 Characteristics of the sample...20

3.3 Questionnaire...21

3.3 Testing the hypotheses...25

4. RESULTS ... 26

4.1 Descriptive statistics ...26

4.3 Affective organizational commitment regressed on independent variables...28

4.5 Use of QMS regressed on organizational commitment and work autonomy ...30

4.6 Belief in QMS regressed on organizational commitment and work autonomy...30

4.7 Use of QMS and belief in QMS regressed on all predictors...31

4.8 Functioning of the quality department and the quality management systems ...33

5. DISCUSSION... 38

5.1 Conclusions ...38

5.2 Recommendations...40

5.3 Limitations...41

REFERENCES ... 44

APPENDIX B: SUGGESTIONS DEPARTMENT OF QUALITY... 52

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW 1 ... 53

1. INTRODUCTION

In business quality management is a popular item nowadays. Quality management systems are implemented in order to control the quality of the products and/or provision of services. This thesis aims to provide insight into the implications of the quality management system on the organizational commitment and work autonomy of employees. And subsequently this study aims to gain insight in what way these two aspects have influence on employees’ belief in the system and use of the system. First the broader context of quality management will be described, before focusing on the situation at company A and B in chapter three where the research has been executed.

1.1 Quality in business

There is not one universal definition of the term quality in business science (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart and Wright 2003:26; Van der Bij et al. 2001:32). There are various definitions because of the many different approaches of quality in business, and these approaches are deduced mainly from the different business contexts, because the major differences relate to whether customer, product, or manufacturing process is emphasized (Noe et al, 2003:26). Therefore, it depends on the situation or context which content is most suitable.

The process of improving quality in business is guided by means of quality management systems. The International Organization for Standardization and the International Trade Centre (2003:13) define a quality management system as a method that guides and controls the activities of an organization that has to deal with quality. A well known quality management system in business is ISO 9001. According to the International Organization for Standardization (2008) the ISO 9001 system contains generic requirements that specify where an organization needs to demonstrate its ability to consistently provide products that meet customer demands and applicable regulatory requirements, and aims to enhance customer satisfaction.

diversity of things done under the name ‘total quality’ that it has become unclear whether TQM still has an identifiable conceptual core (Hackman and Wageman, 1995). Therefore, in this research the more general term quality management is used instead of TQM.

Many organizations try to improve their quality of their products and services in order to meet their customer expectations and to create competitive advantage. However, to accomplish this and to have an effective quality management system it is often expected from employees to behave in an appropriate way. This subject is often neglected or treated narrowly (Hackman and Wageman 1995; Hill 1991; Van der Bij, Broekhuis and Gieskes 2001). Nevertheless, employees with the right skills and knowledge, sufficient effort and appropriate performance are beneficial in contributing work behavior that is in accordance with the quality management system (Hackman and Wageman, 1995). Employees have to show willingness to such a system, because they are an important part of a good working quality management system. At least, procedures and methods need to be followed by the workforce. Hackman and Wageman state that people (1995) need to work harder with more effort, smarter with more knowledge and skills, and more responsively with performance that is better attuned to customer requirements. Finally, one of the main reasons that the development of quality management systems work out badly is because employees are not actively involved to the process of ensuring quality products or services, due to bad communication or due to lack of employees’ motivation (ISO and ITC, 2003:17). So, one of the basic principles of a quality management system is including all employees in the quality management culture (Lawler, 1994).

1.2 Research question

Research goal:

Providing insight into the implications of the quality management systems at organization A and B on the organizational commitment and work autonomy of the employees, and gaining insight in what way these two aspects have influence on employees’ belief in the system and use of the system

Research question:

Which implications have the implementation of a quality management system on the organizational commitment and work autonomy of the employees, and in what way have these aspects influence on employees’ belief in the system and use of the system?

2. THEORY

A quality management system has implications for all employees of an organization, because employees have to adjust the way they perform their jobs to the quality management system (Victor, Boynton and Stephens-Jang 2000; Hackman and Wageman 1995; Lawler 1994). With a quality management system it is expected that employees take responsibility to the quality of the processes, products and/or services. In order to reach this goal it is required that employees have belief in the quality management system and that employees make use of the quality management system in a correct way.

Organizational affective commitment and perceived work autonomy of employees were expected to influence employees’ belief in the system and use of the system. And implications of a quality management were expected to affect commitment and autonomy. Or in other words, organizational commitment and work autonomy are regarded as outcomes of the implications of the quality management system. Also the mediating role of commitment and autonomy was studied. Implications that are discussed in this research are continuous improvement, routinization, standardization of work processes and a clear description of, and balance between responsibilities and authorities.

In this section first the implications of the quality management system are elaborated. Thereafter organizational commitment and work autonomy are described. Also the relations between these two variables and the implications of a quality management system are clarified. Finally, the employees’ use of the system and belief in the system are described.

2.1 Continuous improvement

process of continuous, incremental and organization wide changes of existing methods and practices aimed at improving performance of the organization (Van der Bij et al. 2001:198).

It is expected that some people have more opportunities to continually improve methods and practices than others. Often only a small group of people are engaged in continuous improvement activities. Hackman and Wageman (1995) refer to the remaining discrepancy between the motivationally engaging work of special quality teams or groups who have more autonomy and sometimes even the including authority to redesign and develop improved work methods compared to the standardized work practices of those who perform the routine productive work of the organization. This has to be taken into account when interpreting the results, because it could be that some people who have more autonomy and authority successfully execute the continuous improvement tasks and others not.

2.2 Routinization

Quality management mainly relies on defining best practices with continuous improvement. However, next to continuous improvement routininization is also seen as an implication of a quality management system. Routine is necessary to promote efficiency, minimize variation and take advantage of utilitarian learning (Pina E Cunha, Vieira Da Cunha and Dahab, 2002). Routine work methods make it easier to measure and control whether these goals are realized. Here in this research routinization is seen as mindless repetition; tasks that are not performed consciously as the result of cognitive, rational decisions (Lillrank, 2003). Or the way to solve something is not consciously chosen each time the task is completed (Ohly, Sonnentag and Pluntke, 2006). So, continuous improvement is more about activities that require consciously thinking, while routine tasks are more about doing without consciously thinking.

2.3 Clear description of, and balance between responsibilities and authorities

products. So, with a quality system a well documented description of responsibilities and authorities is introduced and therefore it is expected that with a quality management system it is more clear for employees what is expected of them. Also it is expected that when responsibilities and authorities are clearly described there is a better balance between responsibilities and authorities. When there is paid attention to the clear description of these aspects people have deliberately investigated these authorities and responsibilities. It leads to consciousness of these aspects and it is assumed that this has a positive influence on the balance between authorities and responsibilities.According to Ahaus (1994) responsibilities and authoritiesare strongly related aspects and should therefore be in balance.

Responsibility is a duty of a person or group of people to account to a person or group of people who is/are directly superior in the hierarchy and a person or group of people with whom an operational or functional relationship exists only for activities related to a person’s own position (Ahaus, 1994:32). Van der Bij et al. (2001) mention another characteristic of responsibility; the duty of someone to look after the interests of one or more people by undertaking activities and taking decisions themselves or by supervising that others will do this. Authority is the right to carry out an activity (Ahaus, 1994:32); for instance delegating instructions to lower level employees. Again Van der Bij et al. (2001) add a characteristic, namely looking after interests with the right to undertake activities and take decisions themselves, and moreover have for instance the availability of money, people and other facilities that facilitate these activities.

Responsibilities and authorities should be in balance (Ahaus 1994:83). When this is not in balance and an employee has too little authority relative to responsibilities, he or she may experience stress and on the other hand when an employee has too much authority and too little responsibility he or she may experience dissatisfaction and exhaustion, because of meaningless work activities (Ahaus 1994:124). An employee that is responsible is only accountable when he or she has the necessary authorities.

2.4 Standardization of work processes

Furthermore standardizing work processes goes together with a quality management system, because in such a system the objective of a quality management system is to create a simple workflow that has carefully specified work activities (Lawler, 1994). Therefore, emphasis is usually put on work process simplification and codification (Lawler, 1994). Poksinska (2007) mentions standardization of work processes by formally written rules, procedures and instructions as a basic principle of the widespread international standards such as ISO. According to Goetsch and Davids (2006) procedures and work instructions in quality handbooks that are mainly focused on finding best practices contribute to a higher degree of standardization.

So, a quality management system goes together with a high degree of standardization. According to Van der Bij et al. (2001:158) controlling processes and demonstrating a controlled process by forms of standardized work processes with procedures are important quality tasks. Written procedures make it easier to fulfill this controlling aspect and contribute therefore to a higher degree of standardization. These procedures are a series of interrelated sequential steps that employees follow in the accomplishment of their job tasks (Robbins and Barnwell 2002:104). With written procedures members of an organization can anticipate on each other, because they know how people will act and it standardizes the behavior of people in order to reduce variability that should result in a lower likelihood of error. With this reduction in variability organizations hopefully can provide a better quality of services or products to its customers.

organization. On a sales department work processes are probably less standardized than on an administrative department.

Above mentioned implications of a quality management system have influence on organizational commitment and work autonomy of employees. These two concepts are elaborated in subsequent paragraphs. Also commitment and autonomy are brought in relationship with the implications of the quality management system.

2.5 Organizational commitment

In this study organizational commitment is seen as an important work attitude that influences the employees’ belief in the quality management system and use of the quality management system. According to Van der Bij et al. (2002) are employees with a high degree of organizational commitment beneficial to an effective implementation of a quality management system, because it is very much likely that a high degree of commitment leads to a more successful implementation of a quality system. If the quality management system is already implemented organizational commitment is still an important work attitude, because committed people are expected to display a willingness to work harder to achieve organizational goals (Buelens et al. 2006:101). Furthermore Van der Bij et al. (2002:182) say that people with a high level of commitment are more willing to accept and identify themselves with new values. Therefore a high degree of organizational commitment is beneficial to achieving the quality goals and an effective working quality management system in general.

Organizational commitment has been conceptualized and measured in various ways. Porter, Steer, Mowday and Boulivan (1974) state that organizational commitment can generally be characterized by at least three factors:

- A strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values; - A willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; - A definite desire to maintain organizational membership.

- Affective commitment: people’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in, the organization;

- Continuance commitment: people’s consideration of the benefits of organizational membership and the perceived costs of leaving;

- Normative commitment: people’s commitment based on a sense of obligation to the organization.

Concerning quality management affective commitment is the most important one, because this underlies the ‘we-feeling’ that is suitable in a quality management system (Van der Bij et al. 2001:183). This ‘we-feeling’ refers to a basic principle in quality management; working together at improving the quality of products and/or services of the organization. Furthermore affective commitment is suggested to be a better predictor of employee attitudes and behaviors than many other measures (Porter et al. 1974), which is important in current research, because it focuses on employees’ behavior towards a quality management system. Below the relationships that were expected between the implications of a QMS and organizational commitment are described.

2.5.1 Continuous improvement and commitment

Hackman and Wageman (1995) mention case reports where continuous improvement activities go together with energy, enthusiasm, and commitment of employees. Furthermore Victor et al. (2000) found out that when continuous improvement exists successfully next to routine and standard activities this is positively and significantly associated with higher levels of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has a significant and strong relationship with organizational commitment (Buelens et al. 2006:101) and therefore it is expected that there will be a positive relationship between continuous improvement and organizational affective commitment.

Hypothesis 1:

2.5.2 Routinization and commitment

It is expected that routinization has a negative impact on organizational commitment. Routinization (Ohly et al. 2006) refers to activities that are executed repeatedly and predictably and this leads to the same output each time those activities are performed. According to Hackman and Wageman these routine and predictable activities are associated with employees that experience their work as less meaningful (Hackman and Wageman, 1995). Therefore routinization is negatively associated with organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 2:

A high degree of routinization is negatively associated with higher levels of organizational affective commitment.

2.5.3 Clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities related to commitment

Hypothesis 3:

The better responsibilities and authorities are clear and balanced, the higher the organizational affective commitment.

2.5.4 Standardization of work processes and commitment

Characteristics of quality management systems are procedures and work instructions which are meant to maximize the efficiency in order to make the work easy to perform and consequently reduce variability. This standardization of work processes has consequences for employees’ organizational commitment. Lawler (1994) states the tasks are usually simplified to fewer steps in the work processes and better specified activities and this is the opposite of enriched work that leads to employee involvement. This is likely to result in a higher degree of organizational, affective commitment. Furthermore, there is some evidence (Noe et al. 2003:165) that a more mechanistic approach leads to a lower job satisfaction and this concept is strongly related to organizational commitment (Buelens et al. 2006:101; Porter et al. 1974). Therefore it is expected that standardization of work processes is negatively associated with organizational affective commitment.

Hypothesis 4:

A high degree of standardization of work processes has a negative impact on higher levels of organizational affective commitment.

2.6 Work Autonomy

Furthermore Hackman and Oldham (1976) state that a job with a high degree of autonomy has a positive influence on for instance internal work motivation and satisfaction with the work. According to Breaugh (1999) these authors measure only global autonomy because they focus on work methods and work scheduling, and they say these are not the only key features of autonomy. Another meaningful autonomy facet is criteria autonomy which refers to the degree employees have the discretion to choose their goals in order to influence their evaluated performance. Breaugh (1985; 1999) proposes work method autonomy, work schedule autonomy and criteria autonomy as three different scales that should be incorporated in the field of studying autonomy:

- Work method autonomy (how): the degree of discretion or choice individuals have regarding the procedures or methods they utilize in going about their work;

- Work scheduling autonomy (when): the extent to which people feel they can control the scheduling/sequencing/timing of their work activities;

- Work criteria autonomy (what): the degree to which workers have the ability to modify or choose the criteria used for evaluating their performance.

Work autonomy differs within the organization, for instance between full-time and part-time employees. Breaugh (1999) found out that full-time employees had more work method, work scheduling and work criteria autonomy than part-time employees. Also between different jobs the amount of autonomy differs; sales people for example have considerable autonomy in their sales activities, while administrative workers often have to adhere to clearly detailed work specifications. Below the relationships that were expected between the implications of a QMS and work autonomy are described.

2.6.1 Continuous improvement and autonomy

Hypothesis 5:

A high degree of continuous improvement is positively associated with higher degrees of work autonomy.

2.6.2 Routinization and autonomy

On the opposite it is expected that the routine and standard activities have a negative impact on work autonomy. Routinization is about automaticity in behaviour (Ohly et al. 2006), which refers to activities that are executed repeatedly and predictably and this leads to the same output each time those activities are performed. Consequently employees who experience a high degree of routinization probably feel they have less work autonomy, because they experience it as having less freedom in choosing their work methods, work scheduling and work criteria.

Hypothesis 6:

A high degree of routinization is negatively associated with higher degrees of work autonomy.

2.6.3 Clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities related to autonomy

freedom between the boundaries that are set in job descriptions due to a balance between authorities and responsibilities. Above mentioned considerations imply a positive relationship between clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities and work autonomy.

Hypothesis 7:

The better responsibilities and authorities are clear and balanced, the higher degrees of work autonomy.

2.6.4 Standardization of work processes and autonomy

It is expected that standardization of work processes is negatively associated with work autonomy. Because standardization of work processes tends to rely mainly on formalization of procedures and a high degree of formalization leads to a minimum amount of discretion over what is to be done, when it is to be done, and how he or she should do it (Robbins and Barnwell 2002:101). Furthermore Hackman and Wageman (1995:326) state that procedures are identified and documented, diffused throughout the organization and standardized, finally with the result that work-units members may wind up with very little discretion about how to perform their tasks. These procedures, resulting in standardized work processes, lead likely to a lower degree of autonomy. Ross and Wright (in: Lillrank 2003) confirm this, because these authors state that routine work is associated with a lack of autonomy.

Hypothesis 8:

A high degree of standardization of work processes is negatively associated with higher degrees of work autonomy.

2.7 Use of the system and belief in the system

2007). Belief in the system is a reflection of the inner conviction of an employee and the behavioral counterpart of belief is use of the system, which means referring to the system in everyday circumstances (Turusbekova, 2007). It is very much likely that the use of the system is a consequence of the belief in the system, but this is not necessary, however a combination of these two is beneficial for a good working quality management system (Turusbekova, 2007). It is expected that a high degree of work autonomy and organizational commitment strengthen both belief in and use of the quality management system. To the extent that a job has high autonomy, the outcomes depend increasingly on the individual’s own efforts, initiatives and decisions and in such circumstances, the individual should feel strong personal responsibility for the success and failures that occur on the job (Hackman and Oldham, 1967). Furthermore, a high degree of work autonomy has a positive influence on for instance internal work motivation and satisfaction with the work (Hackman and Oldham, 1976). Therefore it assumed that autonomy has a positive influence on both belief in, and use of the quality management system. Also committed people are more likely to use and belief the system then less committed people, because committed people are expected to display a willingness to work harder to achieve organizational goals (Buelens et al. 2006:101) and are more willing to accept and identify themselves with new values (Van der Bij et al. 2002:182). On the other hand less committed people feel less emotional attachment to, identification with and involvement in the organizational goals and values (Buelens et al. 2006, Allen and Meyer 1990). Therefore it is assumed that both a high degree of organizational commitment and work autonomy have a positive relationship with use of the quality management system and belief in the quality management system.

Hypothesis 9a:

A high degree of organizational commitment is positively associated with a correct use of the system.

Hypothesis 9b:

Hypothesis 10a:

A high degree of organizational commitment is positively associated with high levels of belief in the system.

Hypothesis 10b:

A high degree of work autonomy is positively associated with a high levels of belief in the system.

It is therefore expected that organizational commitment and work autonomy mediate between continuous improvement, routinization, clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities, standardized work processes on one hand and use of the system and belief in the system on the other hand. Mediators represent properties of a person that transform the predictor or independent variable in some way (Baron and Kenny, 1986). In this case first was determined in what way the implications were established and subsequently which influence this has on experienced commitment and perceived autonomy of employees. And it is assumed that this mediates between the implications and use of, and belief in the QMS. This because the expected relations between the implications of the quality management system and commitment and autonomy, and the expected relations between commitment and autonomy and belief in, and use of the system, suggest potential mediating relations. In Figure 1 all hypotheses are presented in the conceptual model of the research.

Hypothesis 11a:

Organizational affective commitment mediates the relationship between continuous improvement, routinization, standardization of work processes, clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities, and use of the QMS.

Hypothesis 11b:

Organizational affective commitment mediates the relationship between continuous improvement, routinization, standardization of work processes, clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities, and belief in the QMS.

Hypothesis 11c:

responsibilities and authorities, and use of the QMS.

Hypothesis 11d:

Work autonomy mediates the relationship between continuous improvement, routinization, standardization of work processes, and clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities, and belief in the QMS.

In Figure 1 the conceptual model of this study is given. All hypotheses are included in the model. FIGURE 1 Conceptual model Routinization Organizational commitment (affective) Perceived work autonomy

Use of the quality management system Clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities Standardization of work processes H1 H5 H3 H4 H8 H9a Continuous improvement H2 H6

H7 _{Belief in the quality}

3. RESEARCH METHODS

This section deals with the methodology underlying this research. Empirical data was gathered with a questionnaire among all employees of organization A and B. Below first both companies and their workforce are described. Also the characteristics of the sample that was taken are discussed. Finally, the construction of the questionnaire is described.

3.1 Quality management at both organizations

Central in this paper is quality management at the collection agency A and the bailiff agency B. With the implementation of a quality management system it should be easier to obtain the goal of meeting expectations of the customer. In this specific case the study ultimately may contribute to a better quality of the collection services and bailiff activities of both company’s. In 1998 the company X had implemented a quality system on the base of ISO 9001 and the quality norms of the Koninklijke Vereniging voor Gerechtsdeurwaarders. On the 1st of November 2006 X has been separated in organization A and B. Since the separation the ISO certificate is only meant for organization B. Organization A has implemented another quality system soon after the separation. Since the 1st of April 2007 organization A is candidate member of the NVI (Nederlandse Vereniging van Incasso ondernemingen) and this means that they have obtained the ‘Incasso Keurmerk of the NVI’. NVI focuses on the correct treatment of debtors. This correct treatment means compliance with the law and general principles of carefulness and expertise.Nowadays the company is a full member of the NVI. Organization B has recently incorporated other bailiff agencies in the south of the Netherlands, but the ISO certificate is only meant for the three locations in the North of the Netherlands.

employees. So, both organizations realized that employees are an important aspect in a quality management system and at this moment there might be opportunities in the domain of the workforce to improve both quality systems.

Therefore the influence of the implications of a quality management system on the employees was studied, and then especially the influence on the experienced organizational commitment and work autonomy of the employees. Furthermore, it was studied in what way implications of a quality management system, organizational commitment and work autonomy influences the use of the quality management system and belief in the quality management system. Organizational commitment and work autonomy are regarded as outcomes of the implications of the quality management system and are expected to influence the employees’ belief in and use of the quality management system. So, the focus lies on evaluating employees’ commitment and autonomy as both have an impact on the use of, and belief in a quality management system. It could be that in that area improvements are possible or maybe even necessary. Besides this the organizations wanted to have some feedback of the employees whether they are doing well as quality department and also they wanted to know whether employees are aware of the importance of complaint registrations and internal audits. Because recently all employees were informed about the way complaints should be registered and treated, and now both organizations wanted to know whether this has increased the awareness. And regarding internal audits, both organizations wanted to investigate to what extent employees come up with new ideas during internal audits. Therefore these topics were included in the research.

3.2 Characteristics of the workforce

Incasso Keurmerk. Those differences in familiarity with the quality management systems may have to be taken into account when interpreting the results.

Furthermore organization A exists out of several different departments; legal, financial, administrative, debt collection, facilities, human resources and quality, commercial and ICT.Several departments like for instance the commercial department are also of service to organization B. On the other hand organization B mainly exists out of bailiffs and people that have an additional job next to their study. This last group was not included in this research. With interpreting the results there is made no difference between both company’s because both implemented quality systems are based on the fundamentals of quality management. Both quality handbooks for instance have the same objectives.

3.3 Characteristics of the sample

Of all the employees who filled in the questionnaire there were 57 usable. The response rate was 38 %.Of the usable questionnaire there were 22 (38,6 %) filled in by men and 35 (61,4 %) were filled in by women and this is similar to the distribution in reality (37,7 % men and 62,3 % women). As expected the majority of the participants are relatively young; 67 % of the respondents ranged from 20 to 30. Also this is similar to the distribution in reality were 65 % of the employees range from 20 to 30.

Furthermore all departments are represented in the filled in questionnaires. However, the commercial department is very well represented, probably because the researcher works at this department. Also the bailiff and execution departments are well represented, but on the other hand the debt collection departments are less represented than in reality. Furthermore, 18 respondents (31,6 %) work at the company B and 39 of the respondents (68,4 %) work at A.

The majority of the respondents work relatively short at the company, namely 27 respondents (47,4 %) work two years or less at one of the company’s. And 19 (33,3 %) participants have a job tenure of two till five years and 11 participants (19,3 %) a job tenure of five years or more. Many people have a relatively short working period at one of the company’s, because both company’s have been grown rather fast the last couple of years and as a result new people were hired.

much of the working activities are written down in the quality handbooks (appendix A). The results on this analysis are listed below in Table 1. On average the participants spend 79,7 % of their working time on regular working activities and 20,2 % on improvement activities. When the results were investigated more closely, employees in the more narrow skilled jobs (for instance administrative employees, debt collection employees and execution employees) spend during their work on average more time (85,6 %) on regular working activities compared to improvement activities (14,5 %). Also people who have more professional jobs (for instance direction, managers and team leaders) spend during their work more time on regular activities (71,6 %) compared to improvement activities (28,5 %). However, the people who have the more professional jobs spend more time on improvement activities compared to the people who execute the more narrow skilled jobs. And in the narrow skilled jobs employees have more regular working activities compared to the professional jobs.

TABLE 1

Regular and improvement working activities

Narrow skilled jobs Professional jobs

Regular working activities 85,6 % 71,6 %

Improvement working activities 14,5 % 28,5 %

Concerning the second question employees gave an indication of how much of their working activities are formalised in one of the quality handbooks. Respondents state that on average 62 % is written down in quality handbooks. Again when the results are investigated more closely; the more narrow skilled jobs like collection employees say that on average 82,7 % of their working activities is written down compared to managers, direction and team leaders who say that no more than 63,7% of their working activities is described in the quality handbooks.

3.3 Questionnaire

respondent’s age, gender, length of tenure, function and department. After these general questions the questionnaire addresses the concepts: continuous improvement, routinization, clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities, standardization of work processes, organizational commitment, work autonomy, belief in the quality management system and use of the quality management system. Finally, the questions related to the concepts were constructed with a seven points Likert Scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. A seven points scale was chosen instead of a five points scale, because a seven points scale leads to a greater dispersal in answers compared to a five points scale whereby the amount of neutral answers is less compared to a five points scale.

After roughly analyzing the results there were also two employees interviewed with some open questions (appendix C). These two employees were interviewed about the quality management systems at organization A and B in order to clarify results of questions that were added on request by both company’s. Below the concepts with the items of questionnaire for all employees are discussed.

Continuous improvement

The concept of continuous improvementis based on items constructed by Victor et al. (2002). These items tried to figure out to what extent employees carry out these kind of improvement activities that contribute to an continuous improvement of the overall operation of the organization. The items of Victor et al. (2002) were in their study used in a manufacturing company and are therefore adjusted to the service providing context of organization A and B. Also two new items were added. One was included on request by the company: ‘During internal audits I often come up with new ideas in order to improve the quality of our services and provision of services.’ The other added item was included to investigate whether employees think of new methods in order to improve the cooperation between different departments, because this is also seen as an important aspect of quality management. The items of continuous improvement were found suitable to measure the concept (α = .91). A sample item is (appendix A): ‘I make suggestions in order to improve the quality of my working activities.’

The items of routinization were derived from the Self-Report Habit Index of Verplanken and Orbell (2003). They developed a 12 item index of habit strength which states that when behavior has been sufficiently repeated, it might be habit, which means the automaticity in responding to certain cues, that determines the occurrence of future behavior (Verplanken and Orbell; 2003). This automaticity results in routine behavior. All items constructed by Veplanken and Orbell (2003) start with: ‘behavior X is something…’ The three behaviors they mainly measured were watching GTST (soap on Dutch television), eating candies and switching on music. Here only five items were used, because the remaining seven items were not applicable in this study. They could not be changed in items which measure working behavior, because those items were too specific formulated for measuring daily and weekly habits in everyday life, such as ‘Behavior is X something that is typically me’. The remaining items were formulated comparable to (appendix A): ‘My work is something I do without having to consciously remember.’ Finally, one new item was added (appendix A): ‘There is much variety in my work’. This was needed to get a better insight in routines of working activities. Cronbach’s alpha for routinization in this research was α = .86.

Clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities

The concept ‘clear’ and ‘balanced’ responsibilities and authorities was measured by developing a new scale; first two statements concerning the extent to which responsibilities and authorities are completely and clearly written down were formulated, because a necessary condition of most quality systems is a quality handbook in which responsibilities and authorities are clearly and completely described (Van der Bij et al. 2001; Ahaus 1994). Furthermore, responsibilities and authorities should be in balance (Ahaus 1994) and therefore five items regarding this balance were formulated. Reliability for clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities was rather high (α = .81). A sample item is (appendix A): ‘I have more authorities than I need considering my responsibilities.’ In order to get a complete view of the clarity and balance between authorities and responsibilities also the following questions were included: ‘For what I am responsible, I have enough authorities.’ and ‘I have not enough authorities considering my responsibilities.’

Also the concept standardized work processes was measured by developing a new scale. The key feature of standardized work processes is carefully specified work activities in written procedures and work instructions (Poksinska 2007, Van der Bij et al. 2001, Lawler 1994). Written procedures are series of interrelated sequential steps that employees should follow in the accomplishment of their job tasks (Robbins and Barnwell 2002:104). First, three items were focused on this characteristic and one item was about the reduced variability in output due to standardization. The difference with routinization is that here it is about carefully specified work activities that are written down in procedures, and with routinization this is not necessarily the case. A sample item is (appendix A): ‘The procedures and work instructions exist out of several steps which I have to obey during my work.’ Cronbach’s alpha was α = .80.

Work autonomy

Breaugh (1999) created items in order to measure work autonomy. In this research these items were used to measure the perceived work autonomy of the employees. Measuring work autonomy is separated in three parts; method autonomy, scheduling autonomy and criteria autonomy. A sample item is(appendix A): ‘I am allowed to decide how to go about getting my job done (the methods to use).’ The reliability of work autonomy was high (α = .90).

Organizational commitment

Allen and Meyer (1990) developed the affective commitment scale in order to measure organizational, affective commitment. In current research the same scale was used to measure organizational commitment, however reversed questions were not used. The negative items of Allen and Meyer included the word ‘not’ and the appearance of negation in a questionnaire item paves the way for easy misinterpretation; a sizable portion of the respondents will read over the word and answer on that bias (Babbie, 2001: 244). This possibility of reading over the word increases when the questionnaire consists out of many questions. A sample item is (appendix A): ‘I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.’ Again this measuring scale was high in reliability (α = .86).

For measurement of belief in the system the two items of Turusbekova (2007) were used (α = .60) and also four new items (questions 41, 44, 48 and 49 in appendix A) were added in order to get a more reliable measuring scale. Belief in the system is a reflection of the inner conviction of an employee and therefore the items related to this concept are general statements concerning whether employees think the quality management system is in their situation effective or not. A sample item is (appendix A): ‘The quality management system serves to limit rather than to support my working activities.’ The reliability coefficient of this new measuring scale was α = .83.

Use of the system is the behavioral counterpart of belief in the system. The only item Turusbekova (2007) used in her research (‘I refer to QMS as often as I need it’) is omitted, because this item was not suitable for measuring use of the system in this context. In this specific situation the question is formulated too general, and therefore respondents might interpret the question not in the meant way or even not understand the question. More specific questions were needed to get a better insight in the use of quality management system. Therefore six new items were constructed. A sample item is (appendix A): ‘If my working activities change, I write a new procedure and/or I pass this on to the department of quality management’. Also here the reliability coefficient is rather high; α = .90.

3.3 Testing the hypotheses

4. RESULTS

In this chapter results of the study are presented. First, results of the tested hypotheses are given. Thereafter the qualitative data and the answers on the questions that were added on request by organization A and B are described.

4.1 Descriptive statistics

Table 1 gives an overview of the means, standard deviations, correlations and reliability coefficients of this study. All variables are measured on a seven points Likert scale, meaning that the lowest score possible equals one and the highest score possible equals seven. A score of four means neutrality. The mean ratings in Table 1 provide some information on general attitudes and perceptions of the participants.

From these results can be derived that the score on balanced responsibilities and authorities is rather high (5.33). However, the score on clear responsibilities and authorities is much lower (3.88) which results in a score on both aspects somewhat above the neutral score of four (4.60). The respondents also experience some freedom in scheduling their working activities, because the score on scheduling autonomy is rather high (5.32). This high score in scheduling autonomy results in a rather high score on work autonomy in general (5.07). Furthermore there is a low score on routinization (3.18). Also the score on use of the quality management system is somewhat below the neutral score of four (3.81). Finally, the score on continuous improvement is quite high (4.95). The subscales of work autonomy and responsibilities and authorities were not included in regression analysis, because the subscales together measured one concept that was only of importance for the study.

4.3 Affective organizational commitment regressed on independent variables

The first step in the regression analysis was regressing organizational commitment (mediator) on continuous improvement, routinization, standardization of work processes, and clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities (independent variables). The results of these regression analyses are listed in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Simple Regression Analysis

Independent variables Organizational Commitment

β R² Adjusted R² Continuous improvement Routinization Responsibilities/authorities Standardization .51*** .26*** .25 -.49*** .24*** .23 .32* .10* .09 .05 .002 -.05 *** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05

The first and second hypothesis suggested that continuous improvement has a positive relationship with organizational commitment and that routinization has a negative relationship whit organizational commitment. The results support both hypotheses. Because only one predictor has been considered, β is equal to the correlation coefficient r and with a correlation of .51 we can conclude that there is a significant positive relationship between continuous improvement and organizational commitment, and therefore the hypothesis is accepted. On the other hand has routinization a significant negative relationship with organizational commitment and therefore also this hypothesis is accepted. The R² tells us that continuous improvement and routinization can account for respectively 26 % and 24 % of the variation in affective organizational commitment. The adjusted R² tells us how much variance in organizational commitment would be accounted for if the model had been derived from the population from which the sample was taken (Field, 2005). Ideally the value of the adjusted R² is the same, or is very close to, the value of R², because then the model generalizes well (Field, 2005). In the case of for instance continuous improvement the difference is small; in fact the difference is 0.26 – 0.25 = 0.01, about 1%. So, if the model were derived from the population instead of the sample it would account for approximately 1% less variance in the outcome.

closely, balanced responsibilities and authorities have a significant positive relationship with commitment (r or β = .30, significant at 0.05 level) and clear responsibilities not (r or β .23, not significant). Finally, the fourth hypothesis is rejected, because standardization of work processes has no significant relationship with organizational commitment.

4.4 Work autonomy regressed on independent variables

Also work autonomy has been regressed on continuous improvement, routinization, standardization of work processes, and clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities. The results of these regression analyses are presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3

Simple Regression Analysis

Independent variables Work autonomy

β R² Adjusted R² Continuous improvement Routinization Responsibilities/authorities Standardization .41** .17** .15 -.36** .13** .11 .53*** .28*** .27 -.09 .01 -.09 *** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05

4.5 Use of QMS regressed on organizational commitment and work autonomy

The ninth hypothesis suggests that organizational commitment and work autonomy are positively associated with use of the quality management system. The results of these regression analyses are listed in Table 4.

TABLE 4

Simple Regression Analysis

Mediators Use of the QMS

β R² Adjusted R² Organizational commitment Work autonomy .30* .09* .07 .35** .12** .10 *** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05

The results support the hypothesis. Both organizational commitment and work autonomy have a significant positive relationship with use of the quality management system (respectively β .30 and β .35). The R² tells us that both organizational commitment and work autonomy predict respectively only 9 % and 12 % of the use of the quality management system. There may be other factors that have more influence on use of the system, but still this hypothesis can be accepted. Furthermore it is expected that commitment and autonomy function as a mediator between other variables and use of the QMS, which will be tested in subsequent analyses.

4.6 Belief in QMS regressed on organizational commitment and work autonomy

The tenth hypothesis suggests that organizational commitment and work autonomy are positively associated with belief in the quality management system. The results of these regression analyses are presented in Table 5.

TABLE 5

Simple Regression Analysis

Mediators Belief in the QMS

β R² Adjusted R² Organizational commitment Work autonomy .25 .06 .04 .36** .13** .11 *** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05

commitment functions as a mediator between other variables and belief in the QMS, which will be tested in subsequent analyses.

4.7 Use of QMS and belief in QMS regressed on all predictors

To facilitate the interpretation of possible mediated regression effects, a three-stage regression was performed by means of the mediator that was regressed on the independent variable, regressing the dependent variable on the independent variable and a multiple regression of the dependent variable regressed on both the mediating variable and the independent variable (Baron and Kenny, 1986). The first step, regressing the mediator on the independent variable, was already accomplished in previous paragraphs. These results are once again listed in Table 6a. Furthermore results of the second step are listed in Table 6b.

TABLE 6a

Simple Regression Analysis

Variables Organizational commitment

(Equation 1) β R² Adjusted R² Work autonomy (Equation 1) β R² Adjusted R² Continuous improvement Routinization Responsibilities/authorities .51*** .26*** .25 -.49*** .24*** .24 .32* .10* .09 .41** .17** .15 -.36** .13** .11 .53** * .28** * .27 TABLE 6b

Simple Regression Analysis

Variables Use of the QMS

(Equation 2) β R² Adjusted R² Belief in the QMS (Equation 2) β R² Adjusted R² Continuous improvement Routinization Responsibilities/authorities .33* .11* .10 -.22 .05 .03 .56*** .32*** .30 .33* .11* .09 -.24 .06 .04 .56*** .32*** .31 *** p < .001 ** p < .01 *.p < .05

Equation 1: mediating variable regressed on independent variable Equation 2: dependent variable regressed on independent variable

TABLE 7

Multiple Regression Analysis (mediated by organizational commitment)

Variables Use of the QMS

(Equation 3) β R² Adjusted R² Belief in the QMS (Equation 3) β R² Adjusted R² Continuous improvement Responsibilities/authorities .17 .13* .10 .52*** .10 .06 .11 .11* .08 .54*** .33*** .30 *** p < .001 ** p < .01 *.p < .05

Equation 3: dependent variable regressed on both mediating and independent variable

In case of a mediating relationship the mediator must affect the dependent variable in the third equation where the dependent variable is regressed on both the mediator and the independent variable. If all conditions are hold in the predicted direction, then the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable must be less in the third equation than in the second (Baron and Kenny, 1986).

The results of the regression analyses only support parts of the two hypotheses for organizational commitment. Hypothesis 11a suggests that organizational commitment mediates the relationship between clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities, and use of the quality management system. Hypothesis 11b suggests that organizational commitment mediates the relationship between clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities and belief in the system. In the first equation clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities affected organizational commitment (β .32), subsequently in the second equation clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities affected use of the QMS (β .56) and belief in the QMS (β .56). Finally in the third equation organizational commitment affected both use of the QMS (β .52) and belief in the QMS (β .54). The effect of organizational commitment on use of the QMS and belief in the QMS is less in the third equation than the effect of clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities in the second equation and therefore these parts of the two hypotheses are accepted.

TABLE 8

Multiple Regression Analysis (mediated by work autonomy)

Variables Use of the QMS

(Equation 3) β R² Adjusted R² Belief in the QMS (Equation 3) β R² Adjusted R² Continuous improvement Responsibilities/authorities .25 .16** .13 .53*** .32*** .29 .27* .17** .14 .52*** .33*** .30 *** p < .001 ** p < .01 *.p < .05

Equation 3: dependent variable regressed on both mediating and independent variable

Hypothesis 11c suggests that work autonomy mediates the relationship between continuous improvement and use of the system and hypothesis 11d suggests that work autonomy mediates the relationship between continuous improvement and belief in the system. The results in Table 8 only support the mediating effect between continuous improvement and belief in the QMS. First continuous improvement affected work autonomy (β .41), subsequently in the second equation continuous improvement affected belief the QMS (β .33). Finally in the third equation work autonomy affected belief in the QMS (β .27). The effect of continuous improvement on belief in the QMS is less in the third equation than in the second equation and therefore only this part of the hypothesis is accepted.

Furthermore hypothesis 11c and 11d suggest that clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities are mediated by work autonomy in their relationship with use of the QMS and belief in the QMS and this part of the hypothesis is for both use of the QMS and belief in the QMS accepted. First clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities affected work autonomy (β .53) in the first equation, subsequently in the second equation clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities affected use of the QMS (β .56) and belief in the QMS (β .56). Finally, in the third equation work autonomy affected both use of the QMS (β .53) and belief in the QMS (β .52). The effect of work autonomy on use of the QMS and belief in the QMS is less in the third equation than the effect of clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities on use of the QMS and belief in QMS in the second equation and therefore these parts of the two hypotheses are accepted.

4.8 Functioning of the quality department and the quality management systems

our quality management very well’) are presented here. This question was not added on request by the organization, but it was part of measuring use of the QMS and belief in the QMS in order to check to what degree employees are familiar with QMS. The results on this question are added here, because they imply that not everyone is familiar with quality management and that it therefore is an important issue to keep in mind. This also can be illustrated with a quote from the interview (appendix D): ‘Until now I have never used the quality handbook. Before having this interview I glanced through the quality handbook.’ Below in Figure 2 the results on this question are presented.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * FIGURE 2

Actually I do not know our quality management system very well

1: strongly disagree 2: disagree 3: fairly disagree 4: neutral 5: fairly agree 6: agree 7: strongly agree

*: I do not know/ no opinion

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * FIGURE 3

During internal audits I often come up with new ideas in order to improve the quality of our services and provision of services

1: strongly disagree 2: disagree 3: fairly disagree 4: neutral 5: fairly agree 6: agree 7: strongly agree

*: I do not know/ no opinion

Furthermore, three other questions were added on request of the organisations in order to get some feedback of the employees whether the quality department is doing well and whether employees are aware of the importance of complaint registrations and internal audits. Below in Figure 4, 5 and 6 these results are presented. First, the majority of the respondentssay that it is rather easy to get in contact with the department of quality.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * FIGURE 4

It is easy to get in contact with the department of quality

1: strongly disagree 2: disagree 3: fairly disagree 4: neutral 5: fairly agree 6: agree 7: strongly agree

*: I do not know/ no opinion

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * FIGURE 5

I am aware of the importance of complaint registration

1: strongly disagree 2: disagree 3: fairly disagree 4: neutral 5: fairly agree 6: agree 7: strongly agree

*: I do not know/ no opinion

Furthermore both company’s wanted to know whether they pass on complaint registration like it is said by the direction. Here the results are more diverse; 14 respondents (24,6 %) answered they have no opinion or they did not give an answer. Also seven respondents say they strongly disagree or fairly disagree with this statement and 9 respondents are neutral on this point. Finally, there are some respondents who do pass on complaint registrations like it is said by the direction. Because of the various answers there might be paid attention to this issue. It seems that not everyone passes on complaint like it is requested by the direction.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * FIGURE 6

I pass on complaint registrations like it is said by the direction

1: strongly disagree 2: disagree 3: fairly disagree 4: neutral 5: fairly agree 6: agree 7: strongly agree

*: I do not know/ no opinion

5. DISCUSSION

The objective of this study was to gain a better insight into the implications of quality management at organization A and B on the organizational commitment and work autonomy of employees, and subsequently give recommendations in order to improve employees’ belief in the system and use of the system. Ultimately this belief in, and use of the system contributes to a better quality of services. In this chapter conclusions and recommendations are expounded. Also limitations of the study are discussed in this chapter.

5.1 Conclusions

The first objective of this study was to gain a better understanding of how organizational commitment and work autonomy can be predicted by the implications of a quality management system. For the implications continuous improvement, routinization, and clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities expectations were supported; continuous improvement, and clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities were positively associated with both commitment and autonomy. Especially between autonomy and clear and balanced authorities and responsibilities there is a strong relationship (r or β = .53, R² = .28, p < .001) and this is rather remarkable. Because employees could experience clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities also as boundaries that are set which result in less freedom in the way they execute their jobs. Anyhow, this strong relationsip implies that responsibilities and authorities at organization A and B are clear and balanced in a positive way. Routinization was negatively associated with both commitment and autonomy.

Standardization of work processes was not predictive at all for commitment and autonomy, because there was no correlation between this variable and organizational commitment and work autonomy. Maybe there is some disunity about the degree to which working activities are written down in procedures and instructions. Or maybe employees are not familiar enough with the quality handbook. So, too much people maybe did not know what was meant with procedures and instructions that are written down in the quality handbook.

continuous improvement activities are challenging and significant; employees might experience it as meaningful. Furthermore, clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities make clear what is expected from employees. Routinization also can have a notable impact on experienced commitment and autonomy, nevertheless in a negative way. Employees probably experience repeatedly and predictably activities as meaningless and boring compared to continuous improvement activities. And this leads to less organizational commitment and less perceived work autonomy.

The second objective was to asses the influence of organizational commitment and work autonomy on belief in the QMS and use of the QMS. As expected, use of the quality management system was positively related to both organizational commitment and work autonomy. However, contrary to the expectations belief in the QMS was only positively associated to work autonomy. These finding support the idea that in absence of employees who are committed to the organization and in absence of employees who experience work autonomy a correct use of the quality management system may suffer. For belief in the system this is only the case with work autonomy.

Also it was expected that organizational commitment and work autonomy mediate between continuous improvement, routinization, clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities, standardized work processes on one hand and belief in the system and use of the system on the other hand. The mediator function of a third variable like commitment and autonomy represents the mechanism through which the focal independent variable is able to influence the dependent variable of interest (Baron and Kenny, 1986:1173). This means that the relationship between the independent and dependent variable can be (partially) explained by the independent variable that has influence on the mediator and the mediator that subsequently has influence on the dependent variable. The expected mediation in this research was partial confirmed. Organizational commitment functioned as a mediator between clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities, and both belief in the QMS and use of the QMS. And work autonomy functioned as a mediator between continuous improvement and use of the system and it functioned as a mediator between clear and balanced responsibilities and authorities, and both belief in the system and use of the system.