Quality Circles: Promise, Problems, and Prospects in Florida
Over 50 percent of the general public believes that the American people are not as productive as they should be. This view is also shared by those in the labor force as over three-fourths say that they are not working at full potential. Findings such as these and troubling economic trends have made the search for productivity techniques - those that enhance efficiency and effectiveness in organizations - a national priority.
As a result, many management improvement ideas - job enrichment, participative management, co-determination, quality of work life- -have been tried in business and government. A surprising number of them, in particular quality circles, have survived bad economic times, cutback management, concession bargaining - to say nothing of the dual infamy of being Japanese and a solution to everything. As productivity problems in the United States persist, interest in quality circle programs should continue.
Faced with limited resources, increased demands for services, and fiscal uncertainty, state governments have been an important laboratory for productivity experiments. Perhaps the most prominent manifestation of these activities is the unparalleled growth of quality circles - small, voluntary, homogeneous, problem-solving employee groups.
The dramatic spread of quality circles (QCs) in and beyond Japan is telling proof of their general appeal and practical utility; they are the premier strategy for mobilizing human talent to enhance competitive performance.
(1)Major programs in government include more than 2,500 QCs in federal agencies, state projects in Missouri, California, and Florida, and numerous circles in selected counties and municipalities around the nation. In American business, over 7,000 large and small companies use QCs to improve productivity among blue as well as white collar employees.
(2) The quality circle "revolution", in fact, has spawned an entire movement replete with an international association, regular conventions, local chapters, publications, and consultants specialized in program development.
(3)Considering the rapid diffusion of quality circles and their apparent promise for the future, it is important not to draw sweeping, premature, and perhaps erroneous conclusions. In Japan many companies (and most government agencies) do not have QCs, and those firms using them do not always find them to be effective. Similarly, in the United States, while there are many self-reported success stories, there are also instances of failure. Clearly, then, a systematic examination of the American experience with QCs is preferable to uncritical acceptance of claims made by their advocates and critics.
Despite the common tendency to use business as a model to improve government, the public service may be able to lead the effort to develop greater productivity. In a service economy, white collar workers are ripe for quality circles since they have the responsibility and means for influencing productivity.
Not only does government's labor intensive nature make productivity a serious issue, but also key characteristics of the Japanese management style that support QCs - lifetime employment, seniority
systems, limited unions, intrinsic rather than extrinsic rewards - parallel those in American public service. Finally, industry continues to seek scapegoats - tax disincentives, the work ethic, government regulation, insufficient research and development - which have relatively little to do with faltering productivity. Any discussion of productivity improvement, then, should examine the public sector, an employer that hires more workers than all durable goods manufacturing industries.
Accordingly, this study adds to the limited data base on QCs by exploring their use in Florida, a state seen by many as a part of and contributor to leading social trends
First Missteps
So began a rather tenuous experiment: the formation of quality circles in which small groups of employees and supervisors--"volunteers"--would receive basic training in statistical quality control techniques and then, under the leadership of a trained facilitator, meet regularly to analyze, solve and recommend solutions to quality problems to top management.
While these early efforts were hailed as revolutionary
first-time efforts at participative management, they largely failed. Indeed, just as some government agencies were starting up their quality circles; private companies were abandoning the effort in droves.
Of course, there were many small successes within quality circles. Federal organizations as diverse as the Norfolk, Va., Naval Shipyard, NASA's Lewis Space Center and the U.S. Customs Service reported varying degrees of success in using quality circles to improve products and services. But any comparison to the Japanese model showed vast inadequacies.
Model Japanese companies had 75 percent or more of their workforce in quality circles--in fact, many workers participated in several quality circles. Top managers relentlessly pushed all of their cost, quality and performance data down to the lowest levels of the organization for rigorous evaluation and action. Every worker and supervisor already had extensive training in quality measurement concepts and trust between management and employees were high. Most Japanese labor unions were company unions that supported different kinds of employees meeting and discussing work process changes.
Few of these conditions were prevalent in American corporations and government. Even those experimenting with quality circles with the best intentions simply faced too many obstacles. After a few successes, most organizations were willing to declare victory, abandon the circles and then wait for the next stage of development--an organizationally comprehensive approach to quality under the banner of Total Quality Management.
Over 50 percent of the general public believes that the American people are not as productive as they should be. This view is also shared by those in the labor force as over three-fourths say that they are not working at full potential. Findings such as these and troubling economic trends have made the search for productivity techniques - those that enhance efficiency and effectiveness in organizations - a national priority.
As a result, many management improvement ideas - job enrichment, participative management, co-determination, quality of work life- -have been tried in business and government. A surprising number of them, in particular quality circles, have survived bad economic times, cutback management, concession bargaining - to say nothing of the dual infamy of being Japanese and a solution to everything. As productivity problems in the United States persist, interest in quality circle programs should continue.
Faced with limited resources, increased demands for services, and fiscal uncertainty, state governments have been an important laboratory for productivity experiments. Perhaps the most prominent manifestation of these activities is the unparalleled growth of quality circles - small, voluntary, homogeneous, problem-solving employee groups.
The dramatic spread of quality circles (QCs) in and beyond Japan is telling proof of their general appeal and practical utility; they are the premier strategy for mobilizing human talent to enhance competitive performance.
(1)Major programs in government include more than 2,500 QCs in federal agencies, state projects in Missouri, California, and Florida, and numerous circles in selected counties and municipalities around the nation. In American business, over 7,000 large and small companies use QCs to improve productivity among blue as well as white collar employees.
(2) The quality circle "revolution", in fact, has spawned an entire movement replete with an international association, regular conventions, local chapters, publications, and consultants specialized in program development.
(3)Considering the rapid diffusion of quality circles and their apparent promise for the future, it is important not to draw sweeping, premature, and perhaps erroneous conclusions. In Japan many companies (and most government agencies) do not have QCs, and those firms using them do not always find them to be effective. Similarly, in the United States, while there are many self-reported success stories, there are also instances of failure. Clearly, then, a systematic examination of the American experience with QCs is preferable to uncritical acceptance of claims made by their advocates and critics.
Despite the common tendency to use business as a model to improve government, the public service may be able to lead the effort to develop greater productivity. In a service economy, white collar workers are ripe for quality circles since they have the responsibility and means for influencing productivity.
Not only does government's labor intensive nature make productivity a serious issue, but also key characteristics of the Japanese management style that support QCs - lifetime employment, seniority
systems, limited unions, intrinsic rather than extrinsic rewards - parallel those in American public service. Finally, industry continues to seek scapegoats - tax disincentives, the work ethic, government regulation, insufficient research and development - which have relatively little to do with faltering productivity. Any discussion of productivity improvement, then, should examine the public sector, an employer that hires more workers than all durable goods manufacturing industries.
Accordingly, this study adds to the limited data base on QCs by exploring their use in Florida, a state seen by many as a part of and contributor to leading social trends
First Missteps
So began a rather tenuous experiment: the formation of quality circles in which small groups of employees and supervisors--"volunteers"--would receive basic training in statistical quality control techniques and then, under the leadership of a trained facilitator, meet regularly to analyze, solve and recommend solutions to quality problems to top management.
While these early efforts were hailed as revolutionary
first-time efforts at participative management, they largely failed. Indeed, just as some government agencies were starting up their quality circles; private companies were abandoning the effort in droves.
Of course, there were many small successes within quality circles. Federal organizations as diverse as the Norfolk, Va., Naval Shipyard, NASA's Lewis Space Center and the U.S. Customs Service reported varying degrees of success in using quality circles to improve products and services. But any comparison to the Japanese model showed vast inadequacies.
Model Japanese companies had 75 percent or more of their workforce in quality circles--in fact, many workers participated in several quality circles. Top managers relentlessly pushed all of their cost, quality and performance data down to the lowest levels of the organization for rigorous evaluation and action. Every worker and supervisor already had extensive training in quality measurement concepts and trust between management and employees were high. Most Japanese labor unions were company unions that supported different kinds of employees meeting and discussing work process changes.
Few of these conditions were prevalent in American corporations and government. Even those experimenting with quality circles with the best intentions simply faced too many obstacles. After a few successes, most organizations were willing to declare victory, abandon the circles and then wait for the next stage of development--an organizationally comprehensive approach to quality under the banner of Total Quality Management.