Power point 10 slides-apa format Cultural Brief
tamber92
Qualitymanagement.pdf
Quality management: a cross-cultural perspective based
on the GLOBE framework Alessandra Vecchi
London College of Fashion, University of London Arts, London, UK, and
Louis Brennan School of Business, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the extent to which quality management is “culture-specific”.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents the results of a survey administered across 21 countries that seeks to examine quality priorities and practices by adopting the global leadership and organizational behaviour effectiveness (GLOBE) framework. Data were collected in 2006 as part of the fourth iteration of the International Manufacturing Strategy Survey. The methodology involved the use of a self-administered questionnaire to director/head of operations/manufacturing in best practice firms within the sector of firms classified by ISIC codes (rev.3.1) Divisions 28-35.
Findings – From this study, it emerges that adopting the GLOBE framework provides an invaluable insight into understanding quality management across countries. In particular, the findings show that some national cultures are more conducive to the implementation of quality management than others.
Practical implications – The analysis of the data leads this paper to endorse the idea that through an accumulation of scientific knowledge relevant to the applicability of quality management across national settings, managers can better understand how to transfer best quality management practices from one country to another.
Originality/value – While some previous research portrays quality management as a comprehensive management paradigm with elements and relationships that transcend cultural and national boundaries, the current study provides evidence that the adoption of certain quality practices across different countries can follow distinctive patterns.
Keywords Quality management, Culture
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction Since the 1990s, many quality models have been widely adopted by firms, such as the Deming Prize in Japan, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in the USA and the European Quality Award in Europe as frameworks for implementing total quality management (TQM). The widespread assumption is that these are operational frameworks that reproduce TQM by capturing its main constituent parts and replicate its core ideas in a clear and accessible language (Cua et al., 2001). However, TQM is an approach to management embracing both social (“soft TQM”) and technical dimensions (“hard TQM”). The social aspect focuses on human resource management and emphasises leadership, teamwork, training and employee involvement. The technical dimension reflects an orientation toward improving production methods and operations and seeks through a systematic process to make possible the constant improvement of goods and services to the customers. The management of these two sets of issues cannot be performed
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm
Quality management
527
Received October 2009 Revised March 2010
June 2010 October 2010
Accepted November 2010
International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Vol. 31 No. 5, 2011 pp. 527-553
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0144-3577
DOI 10.1108/01443571111126319
in isolation. Soft and hard TQM should be interrelated and mutually support each other reflecting the holistic character of TQM initiatives (Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006).
The commonly cited problems in the implementation of manufacturing programs are those related to the soft dimension. In particular, cultural resistance to change, lack of training and education (Crawford et al., 1988), lack of coordination of the different departments and confusion in the relationship between manufacturing subsystems (Safayeni et al., 1991) have been portrayed as being detrimental to the successful implementation of manufacturing programs. These studies provide evidence of the importance of the institution of common practices based on a shared understanding that will facilitate the successful implementation of any TQM initiative. Moreover, according to socio-technical systems theory the joint optimization of practices that are socially and technically oriented should lead to good performance (Emery, 1990). For example, Rehder (1989) argues for the importance of building manufacturing competitiveness upon the integration and coordination of strategy, structure, culture and human resource subsystems within a complex, changing environment. He shows that the concept of a balanced socio-technical system is reflected in all subsystems of successful Japanese transplants. Given the increasing importance of TQM and the close interrelation between its social and technical dimensions, managers need to understand how and what dimensions of national culture influence operation decisions.
Previous work on quality management attempts to address the issue of convergence or divergence of quality practices across countries by adopting Hofstede’s national cultural framework. While existing research mainly adopts Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture, global leadership and organizational behaviour effectiveness (GLOBE) captures more comprehensively and less ambiguously the elements of national culture. This paper thus examines quality management by using GLOBE’s nine cultural dimensions (House et al., 2004). The purpose of this study is to address the extent to which quality management is “culture-specific”. To this end, we explore the extent to which the different dimensions of national culture influence quality management in a global context. Specifically, we consider if there is a difference in quality priorities and practices across national cultures followed by a consideration of the managerial implications of the results of our study. The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we provide an overview of the literature of quality management from a cross-cultural perspective. In Section 3, we explain national culture and explore its relationship to TQM by developing several hypotheses. Although many constructs are available, our use of the GLOBE model allows for a more extensive coverage of the dimensions of national culture. In Section 4 of the paper, the methodology is described, while in Section 5, we present the data analysis and the main findings. The final section presents the main conclusions of this study and the managerial implications arising from the findings.
2. Quality management research from a cross-cultural perspective A significant strand of the literature seeks to assess the diversity of quality practices amongst countries. The increased complexity of today’s business environment and heightened international competition make it necessary for firms to improve quality performance by aligning their quality practices in their attempt to capitalise on all possible traditional and non-traditional sources of competitive advantage. In line with this trend, the literature has devoted considerable attention to the issue of quality management and this includes a series of empirical studies of quality management across countries, which
IJOPM 31,5
528
report contrasting conclusions. Traditionally, in the field of comparative management research, there have been three main approaches: the empirical work has been aimed towards testing the “convergence” hypothesis (Form, 1979), the “divergence” hypothesis (Child and Kieser, 1979) and the “culture-specific” hypothesis (Hofstede, 1980).
2.1 The “convergence” hypothesis The “convergence” hypothesis (Form, 1979) asserts that learning will lead managers from different cultures to adopt the same efficient management practices. Competitive pressures will eliminate those who resist convergence. In addition with the increased dissemination of information about best quality practices around the world, one would expect similarities across countries where each country’s respondents would be expected to embrace the same approach as their overseas counterparts. Over time, numerous studies have attempted to substantiate the evidence for “convergence” in the field of quality management research (Zhao et al., 1995; Abdul-Aziz et al., 2000; Chin et al., 2002; Ismail and Ebrahimpour, 2003; Rungtusanatham et al., 2005).
2.2 The “divergence” hypothesis The “divergence” hypothesis (Child and Kieser, 1979) questions the universal applicability of any standardised business practice. According to this perspective, any organisational practice must be adapted to the national context to maximize its effectiveness. The different extent to which organisational practices are adapted to the national context results in the observed divergence of practices across nations. In the field of quality management research, several studies have attempted to substantiate the evidence for the “divergence” and within this perspective the role of culture is acknowledged but often plays a very marginal role (Raghunathan et al., 1997; Subba Rao et al., 1997; Corbett et al., 1998; Tata et al., 2000).
2.3 The “culture-specific” hypothesis Similarly, to the “divergence hypothesis”, the “culture-specific” argument (Hofstede, 1980) shares the view that organisational practices must be adapted to the national context to maximize their effectiveness. While the divergence hypothesis considers all possible factors (political, economic, social legal, etc.) that might cause differences in the implementation of management practices, the culture-specific hypothesis restricts itself to explaining difference solely in terms of culture. In particular, this view contends that even if managers located in different societies face similar imperatives for change, deeply embedded cultural factors will still affect the way managers approach quality and react to the need for change. In particular, Hofstede (1980) identifies four main cultural dimensions, namely power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity. Although there is extensive evidence on how these cultural dimensions affect specific organisational outcomes (Garg and Ma, 2005; Wacker and Sprague, 1998; Flynn and Saladin, 2006; Snell and Hui, 2000), there has been limited effort dedicated to the development of a comprehensive framework to assess the impact of these cultural dimensions on quality management (Krosolid, 1999; Sousa-Poza et al., 2000; Lagrosen, 2002, 2003; Yoo et al., 2005).
By adopting Hofstede’s model, Garg and Ma (2005) have attempted to link national culture to organisational performance. Their findings show that there are significant differences in management systems, leadership and style within the national cultures of three types of organisations (foreign owned, joint ventures and Chinese-owned
Quality management
529
and operated firms). In relation to the effects of culture on the use of information within organisations, Wacker and Sprague (1998) attribute great importance to masculinity. In particular, they found that the type of information used to support decision making in masculine national cultures was dependent on its expected effectiveness in gaining advantage over competitors. By contrast, feminine countries tend to use information more extensively to support decision making. Flynn and Saladin (2006) show that while in countries characterised by high power distance, power as well as decision making tend to be centralised, countries characterised by uncertainty avoidance have an emotional need for rules. Vice-versa, national cultures that score low in uncertainty avoidance dislike formal rules, setting them only when it is necessary. This leads to more emphasis on formal methods for gathering and analysing external information. Differently, Snell and Hui (2000) emphasise the importance of individualism: while members of individualist countries are autonomous and confident, tending to rely primarily on their own ideas, members of collectivist countries are more likely to rely on information provided by others in formulating their opinions.
In the field of quality management research, a few studies have looked at national culture and mostly by using Hofstede’s four main cultural dimensions. One of the major efforts in this area can be attributed to Krosolid (1999) who contends that the development of quality management has followed two distinct paths, the deterministic school and the continuous improvement school. He further argues that the dominance of these two schools is different according to different national cultures. In a similar fashion, Sousa-Poza et al. (2000) assess the application of TQM in the USA, Switzerland and South Africa to investigate the relationship between national culture and the implementation of TQM. Their results show that in each country, several distinct relationships between the dimensions of TQM implementation and national culture exist. They, therefore, imply that the application of TQM should take into account different characteristics of national cultures. In a major study, Mathews et al. (2001) studied quality management practices in the UK, Finland and Portugal. Their evidence indicates that the existing differences in quality management practices could be related to national culture. They find that there is a substantial variation in all aspects of quality management, from the reasons stimulating the adoption of the quality management programme to the problems faced. The dimensions of uncertainty avoidance and power distance appear particularly powerful in explaining the national differences observed. In general, the study finds that “management approaches mirror the culture in which they develop” (Mathews et al., 2001, p. 706). Cultures that are consistent with the imperative of TQM develop styles that will support the underpinning values of quality management. Others that are less consistent may adopt the tools and the approaches but not the philosophy that TQM requires.
The notion of better fit recalls the idea of congruence by which, according to Newman and Nollen (1996) management practices need to be congruent and consistent with national cultural expectations to enable firms to achieve superior performance. An emblematic example is illustrated by Lagrosen (2002) who by using Hofstede’s model shows how quality management assumes different connotations across different countries with power distance and uncertainty avoidance playing an important role. Countries characterised by high uncertainty avoidance were found to have a preference for a clear organisational structure and clearly laid out rules. A subsequent study conducted by Lagrosen (2003) also shows that countries characterised by low uncertainty avoidance and high collectivism tend to have greater customer orientation, while countries characterised
IJOPM 31,5
530
by high uncertainty avoidance tend to focus less on business process. Flynn and Saladin (2006) argue that besides better fit there is also a compensation mechanism that might occur to overcome some of the perceived limitations of the national culture. For example, Snell and Hui (2000) note that high power distance countries tend to rely more on procedure and routines as the national culture is inadequate in the formulation of systematic approaches that would allow employees to do their jobs without intervention.
Additionally, further evidence indicates that masculinity plays a crucial role in determining the overall quality strategy. Masculine countries seem to focus more on the internal operations whilst feminine countries display more concern for the environment as well as sharper customer focus (Yoo et al., 2005). Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) take a step further by conceptualising a contingency model using Hofstede and by relating TQM to the characteristics of national culture. According to the model, quality control (i.e. supervision, inspection and control) can be implemented more effectively by countries characterised by high power distance. Quality assurance (i.e. planned and systematic actions) can be implemented more effectively by countries characterised by high uncertainty avoidance. Continuous improvement (i.e. commitment to improvement and learning) can be implemented more effectively by countries characterised by low power distance and low uncertainty avoidance. Total customer satisfaction (i.e. teamwork and empowerment of internal customers) can be implemented more effectively by countries characterised by low uncertainty avoidance, low power distance and low collectivism.
3. TQM and its relationship to national culture Quality management research that has an international focus has primarily focussed on differences between countries, regions or different organisational cultures while generally overlooking the issue of national culture. The few exceptions (Krosolid, 1999; Sousa-Poza et al., 2000; Mathews et al., 2001; Lagrosen, 2002; Gallear and Ghobadian, 2004; Yoo et al., 2005; Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006) have been limited in the scope of their coverage. Thus, there is a need to study whether quality is, or should be, managed differently in different national cultures. In particular, the literature review suggests that a comparative holistic approach, involving a systematic comparison of similarities and differences that could considerably improve our understanding of quality management implementation in a global context, is missing.
The purpose of this study is to address the extent to which quality management is “culture-specific”. To this end, we explore the extent to which the different dimensions of national culture influence quality management in a global context. Specifically, we consider if there is a difference in quality priorities and practices across national cultures.
One of the most problematic issues confronting the researcher in quality management is the search for an appropriate definition (Fynes, 1998). More precisely, defining “quality” as a construct is difficult given the number of possible alternatives available (Hardie and Walsh, 1994). Reeves and Bednar (1994) suggest a four-way taxonomy of quality definitions that incorporates excellence, value, conformance to specifications and meeting and/or exceeding customer requirements. The diversity that these definitions embrace, they contend, implies that “the quality construct space is so broad and includes so many components that there would be little utility in any model that tried to encompass them all” (p. 441). Conversely, they argue that “the complexity and multiple perspectives historically associated with the concept have made theoretical and research advances difficult” and that ultimately the “search for a universal definition of quality and a statement of law-like relationships has
Quality management
531
been unsuccessful” (p. 441). In addressing this problem, Flynn et al. (1994) argue that a crucial issue in theory development is the articulation of the distinction between quality management practices (input) and quality performance (output), which has been blurred under the broad heading of quality. More recent studies also place emphasis on priorities (Voss, 2005) – manufacturing strategies may be articulated through competitive priorities which are then operationalised through improvement goals as well as action programs and demonstrated by performance improvement (Lindberg et al., 1998; Voss, 2005).
This paper endorses the view that a fuller understanding of quality can be reached only by embracing these concomitant perspectives, namely priorities and practices. In particular, we wish to explore the idea that the means by which priorities are transposed into practices, and how these practices are likely to be affected by national cultures. The review of the literature reveals that culture has a powerful effect on the performance and long-term effectiveness of the firm (Krosolid, 1999; Sousa-Poza et al., 2000; Mathews et al., 2001; Lagrosen, 2002; Gallear and Ghobadian, 2004; Yoo et al., 2005; Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006; Davison and Al-Shaghana, 2007).
Differently, from existing research we adopt GLOBE (House et al., 2004). GLOBE’s intent is to explore the cultural values and practices in a wide variety of countries and to identify their impact on organisational practices and leadership attributes. To this end, House et al. (2004) examine national cultures in terms of nine dimensions:
(1) Uncertainty avoidance is defined as the extent to which members of a society strive to avoid uncertainty by reliance on social norms, rituals and bureaucratic practices to mitigate the unpredictability of future events.
(2) Power distance is defined as the degree to which members of society expect and agree that power should be equally shared.
(3) Institutional collectivism reflects the degree to which societal practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action.
(4) In-group collectivism reflects the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty and cohesiveness in their organisations.
(5) Gender egalitarianism is the extent to which a society minimises gender role differences and gender discrimination.
(6) Assertiveness is the degree to which individuals in societies are assertive, confrontational and aggressive in their social relationships.
(7) Future orientation is the degree to which individuals in societies engage in future-oriented behaviours such as planning, investing in the future and delaying gratification.
(8) Performance orientation refers to the extent to which a society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence.
(9) Humane orientation is the degree to which individuals in organisations or societies encourage and reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring and kind to others.
On the basis of the nine cultural dimensions listed above, the GLOBE study identifies ten societal clusters: South Asia, Anglo, Arab, Germanic Europe, Latin Europe, Eastern Europe, Confucian Asia, Latin America, Sub-Sahara Africa and Nordic Europe.
IJOPM 31,5
532
National culture provides a fruitful area for research in quality management. There is a substantial body of literature available about national culture but there is very little that adopts a holistic approach to assess its effects on quality management. While existing research mainly adopts Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture, GLOBE captures more comprehensively and less ambiguously the elements of national culture as shown in Table I.
Hofstede (2006) has discussed the equivalence between his dimensions of national culture and those of GLOBE. While there is direct correspondence for uncertainty avoidance, power distance and collectivism (with institutional collectivism) the remaining six GLOBE dimensions are not found to have a direct correspondence among Hofstede’s four dimensions. For example, Hofstede’s masculinity is split into assertiveness and gender egalitarianism in GLOBE.
We argue that extending this line of enquiry to quality management issues holds great potential to gain a fuller insight on whether quality should be managed differently across different national cultures. In particular, the paper attempts to provide a fuller appreciation of the mechanisms of either better fit or compensation. Adopting the GLOBE framework can provide a fuller appreciation of these two mechanisms, thus helping firms to better align their quality priorities towards the attainment of improved quality practices. To this end, we attempt to test the following nine hypotheses in relation to quality priorities and quality practices as presented in Table II.
Hypothesis 1 Drawing on Anwar and Jabnoun’s argument (2006), we believe that uncertainty avoidance is likely to have a significant impact on quality priorities. Similarly, drawing on Lagrosen’s argument (2002) and Flynn and Saladin’s (2006) work, we believe that uncertainty avoidance is likely to have a significant impact on quality practices. In particular, uncertainty avoidance is likely to have an impact on the adoption of quality programmes since these practices mostly deal with the formalisation of quality assurance (Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006). We thus expect high uncertainty avoidance countries to be best placed to implement quality programmes and pursue quality performance.
Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture
GLOBE’s dimensions of national culture Uncertainty avoidance
Power distance Collectivism Masculinity
Uncertainty avoidance p
Power distance p
Institutional collectivism p
In-group collectivism , Gender egalitarianism , Assertiveness , Future orientation Performance orientation Humane orientation
Notes: p
– direct correspondence; , – weak similarity Source: Hofstede (2006)
Table I. Correspondence between
Hofstede and GLOBE
Quality management
533
Hypothesis 2 Drawing on Anwar and Jabnoun’s (2006) argument, we believe that power distance is likely to have a significant impact on quality priorities. Similarly, drawing on Snell and Hui’s argument (2000), we believe that power distance is likely to have a significant impact on quality practices. In particular, power distance is likely to have an impact on the distribution of maintenance and quality costs. We thus expect high power distance countries to have more inspection driven quality management practices than their counterparts. In this sense, we would expect the emerging economies of Eastern and Central Europe with a tradition of high power distance to exercise quality control more smoothly (Wacker and Sprague, 1998).
Hypotheses 3 and 4 Drawing on Snell and Hui (2000) as well as Anwar and Jabnoun’s (2006) work adopting Hofstede, we believe that institutional collectivism and in-group collectivism are likely to have a significant impact on quality priorities. Similarly, drawing on Anwar and
Hx Hypothesis Quality priorities Quality practices
H1. Uncertainty avoidance has an impact on quality management
Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) Lagrosen (2002) and Flynn and Saladin (2006)
Adoption of quality programmes
H2. Power distance has an impact on quality management
Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) Snell and Hui (2000) Maintenance and quality costs
H3. Institutional collectivism has an impact on quality management
Snell and Hui (2000) Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) Preventive quality costs The adoption of quality programmes
H4. In-group collectivism has an impact on quality management
Snell and Hui (2000) and Anwar and Jabnoun (2006)
Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) Preventive quality costs The adoption of quality programmes
H5. Gender egalitarianism has an impact on quality management
Wacker and Sprague (1998) and Kyoon Yoo et al. (2005)
Wacker and Sprague (1998) and Anwar and Jabnoun (2006)
Preventive quality costs The implementation of quality programmes
H6. Assertiveness has an impact on quality management
Wacker and Sprague (1998) and Kyoon Yoo et al. (2005)
Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) Quality costs The implementation of quality programmes
H7. Future orientation has an impact on quality management
Lagrosen (2003), Flynn and Saladin (2006) and Anwar and Jabnoun (2006)
Lagrosen (2003) Preventive quality costs and future quality programmes
H8. Performance orientation has an impact on quality management
No previous work Lagrosen (2003) Corrective quality costs and quality programmes
H9. Humane orientation has an impact on quality management
No previous work Lagrosen (2003) Quality costs and quality programmes
Table II. Hypotheses on quality priorities and quality practices
IJOPM 31,5
534
Jabnoun’s (2006) argument we believe that they are likely to have a significant impact on quality practices. In particular, institutional collectivism and in-group collectivism are likely to have an impact in relation to both preventive quality costs and the adoption of quality programmes since these quality practices mostly deal with the formalisation of quality assurance. We thus expect countries characterised by low institutional collectivism and high in-group collectivism to spend more on preventive quality costs and to be best placed to implement quality programmes.
Hypothesis 5 Drawing on the work of Wacker and Sprague (1998) and Yoo et al. (2005) which established the significance of Hofstede’s dimension of masculinity on operations management and quality management, we believe that gender egalitarianism is likely to have a significant impact on quality priorities. Similarly, we believe that gender egalitarianism is likely to have a significant impact on quality practices (Wacker and Sprague, 1998). In particular, gender egalitarianism is likely to have an impact in relation to preventive quality costs and the implementation of quality programmes since these practices mostly deal with the formalisation of quality assurance (Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006). We thus expect countries characterised by high gender egalitarianism to spend more on preventive quality costs and to be best placed to implement quality programmes.
Hypothesis 6 Assertiveness is associated with masculinity (Hofstede, 2006). Drawing again on the work of Wacker and Sprague (1998) and Yoo et al. (2005) which established the significance of Hofstede’s dimension of masculinity on operations management and quality management, we believe that assertiveness is likely to have a significant impact on quality priorities. We expect countries characterised by high assertiveness to place more emphasis on these priorities. Similarly, assertiveness is likely to have a significant impact on quality practices. In particular, assertiveness is likely to have a significant impact in relation to quality costs and the implementation of quality programmes since these quality practices mostly deal with the formalisation of quality assurance (Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006). We thus expect countries characterised by high assertiveness to spend more on corrective quality costs and to be best placed to implement quality programmes.
Hypothesis 7 Drawing on the work on uncertainty avoidance (Lagrosen, 2003; Flynn and Saladin, 2006; Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006), we believe that future orientation is likely to have a significant impact on quality priorities. We thus expect countries characterised by high future orientation to place more emphasis on these priorities. Future orientation is likely to have a significant impact on quality practices and in particular in relation to both quality costs and quality programmes since these practices mostly deal with the formalisation of quality assurance (Lagrosen, 2003). We thus expect countries characterised by high future orientation to spend more on preventive quality costs and to be best placed to implement future quality programmes.
Hypothesis 8 There is no previous work on performance orientation. However, we believe that performance orientation is likely to have a significant impact on quality priorities.
Quality management
535
We expect countries characterised by high performance orientation to place more emphasis on quality priorities. Performance orientation is also likely to have a significant impact on quality practices. In particular, performance orientation is likely to have an impact on quality costs and the implementation of quality programmes since these quality practices mostly deal with the formalisation of quality assurance (Lagrosen, 2003). We thus expect countries characterised by high performance orientation to spend more on corrective quality costs and to be best placed to implement quality programmes.
Hypothesis 9 There is no previous work on humane orientation. However, we believe that it is likely to have a significant impact on quality priorities. We expect countries characterised by low humane orientation to place more emphasis on quality priorities. Human orientation is also likely to have a significant impact on quality practices. In particular, humane orientation is likely to have an impact in relation to both quality costs and quality programmes since these quality practices mostly deal with the formalisation of quality assurance (Lagrosen, 2003). We thus expect countries characterised by low humane orientation to spend more on preventive quality costs and to be best placed to implement quality programmes.
4. Methodology The papers use two independent survey studies – it employs primary data from the fourth iteration of the International Manufacturing Strategy Survey (IMSS IV) and secondary data from the GLOBE survey (House et al., 2004). As discussed below, several factors suggest the combined use of these two datasets. Furthermore, while resembling Hofstede’s model, GLOBE differs from it by presenting a comparative advantage in terms of assessing the extent to which quality management is “culture-specific”.
The main unit of analysis of the IMSS survey were firms and its main respondents were managers. IMSS IV was carried out in 2006. The sampling method was convenient sampling with some random participants. A total of 711 firms in 24 countries responded representing a response rate of some 20 per cent. As for the IMSS data collection, the directors of operations were contacted since they were deemed to be competent to respond to the questionnaire as it covers many strategy domains of the participating plants. Similarly, GLOBE was conducted in 62 countries by involving 951 firms (House et al., 2002). The main respondents were 17,000 managers. By contrast, Hofstede’s study was conducted by involving 40 IBM subsidiaries, between 1967 and 1973, and later expanded through replications to 53 subsidiaries (Hofstede, 2001). In this case, the unit of analysis were the subsidiaries of a single company and the main respondents were employees from different categories – two and five non-managerial.
Overall, given its rationale, its unit of analysis, its research design in terms of respondents, its international focus, the IMSS was deemed as a valuable instrument to assess the extent to which quality management is “culture-specific”. Accordingly, the GLOBE instrument has been deemed as an appropriate methodological tool to assess the results of the IMSS survey in order to provide insights on the issue of quality management across countries.
This study focuses on the part of the IMSS survey that addresses quality management. Questions pertaining to quality priorities and practices are listed in the Appendix. Most questionnaire items were in the form of perceptual measures where respondents were
IJOPM 31,5
536
asked to rate specific priorities and practices in terms of use or importance on five-point Likert scales. These scales can be treated as quasi-ratio scales (Gaski and Etzel, 1986). The constructs’ validity of quality priorities, quality practices and quality performance employed in the questionnaire and measured by the five-point Likert scale is supported by substantial empirical evidence. Both content validity and construct measurement for quality priorities, practices and performance have been widely discussed elsewhere (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Frohlich and Dixon, 2001; Grossler and Grubner, 2006; Vereecke and Muylle, 2006). For the purpose of this analysis, the five-point Likert scales were treated as three-point Likert scales and the associated distribution frequencies were calculated in relation to individual items for quality priorities and quality practices.
Given that the GLOBE scores were unavailable for three IMSS countries – Belgium, Estonia and Norway, we had to exclude the IMSS firms for these countries so that our analysis only considered 21 IMSS countries and 641 firms. This paper specifically examines quality priorities and quality practices across the 21 IMSS countries, classified according to GLOBE’s nine cultural dimensions. In order to benchmark quality management on a global scale, a complete list of the 21 IMSS countries as well as their classification between “low” and “high” (by taking into account the median) according to the nine types of dimension scores and societal cluster is provided in Table III.
The quality priorities and practices are compared across 21 countries, according to GLOBE’s nine cultural dimensions by using the Kruskall-Wallis test to assess possible significant differences. Consistent with Bryman and Cramer (2001), the choice of conducting non-parametric tests was mainly driven by the fact that our sample is biased by the presence of high-performing firms and any assumptions on the distribution of their scores would be highly hazardous.
The hypotheses were tested based on the results obtained from comparative analysis of quality priorities and practices across the GLOBE’s nine cultural dimensions. In particular, hypotheses were accepted where significant differences (either at significance level of p , 0.01 or p , 0.001) in terms of priorities and practices were observed.
5. Data analysis and main findings Table IV contains the percentage distribution scores and the results of the analysis in relation to the first five dimensions of national culture: uncertainty avoidance, power distance, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism and gender egalitarianism while Table V does so for the remaining four dimensions of national culture: assertiveness, future orientation, performance orientation and human orientation.
The findings are discussed below in relation to our original hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 In terms of quality priorities, low uncertainty avoidance countries attribute more importance to superior product quality and superior conformance quality. This is consistent with Lagrosen’s (2003) study according to which low uncertainty avoidance countries tend to have a greater customer focus. Product quality and reliability is also considered more important when considering improvement goals. These results could be explained on the basis that high uncertainty avoidance countries could be currently dealing with different priorities that are not necessarily associated with quality. In this context, quality could be seen as an immediate priority, a better fit only for those low uncertainty avoidance countries that can benefit from a reasonable
Quality management
537
IM S
S IV
co u
n tr
y S
o ci
et a l
cl u
st er
U n
ce rt
a in
ty a v
o id
a n
ce P
o w
er d
is ta
n ce
C o ll
ec ti
v is
m in
st it
u ti
o n
a l
C o ll
ec ti
v is
m g
ro u
p G
en d
er eg
a li
ta ri
a n
is m
A ss
er ti
v en
es s
F u
tu re
o ri
en ta
ti o n
P er
fo rm
a n
ce o ri
en ta
ti o n
H u
m a n
e o ri
en ta
ti o n
A rg
en ti
n a
L a ti
n A
m er
ic a
L H
L H
L H
L L
L
A u
st ra
li a
A n
g lo
L L
L L
L H
H H
H B
ra zi
l L
a ti
n A
m er
ic a
L H
L H
L H
L L
L
C a n
a d
a A
n g
lo H
L H
L H
L H
H H
C h
in a
C o n
fu ci
a n
A si
a H
L H
H L
L L
H H
D en
m a rk
N o rd
ic E
u ro
p e
H L
H L
H L
H H
H
G er
m a n
y G
er m
a n
ic E
u ro
p e
H H
L L
L H
H H
L
G re
ec e
E a st
er n
E u
ro p
e L
H L
H L
L L
L L
H u
n g
a ry
E a st
er n
E u
ro p
e L
H L
H H
L L
L L
Ir el
a n
d A
n g
lo L
H H
H L
L H
H H
Is ra
el L
a ti
n E
u ro
p e
L L
H H
L H
L H
L
It a ly
L a ti
n E
u ro
p e
L H
L H
L L
L L
L
N ew
Z ea
la n
d A
n g
lo H
L H
L L
L L
H H
T h
e N
et h
er la
n d
s G
er m
a n
ic E
u ro
p e
L L
H L
H H
H H
L
P o rt
u g
a l
L a ti
n E
u ro
p e
L H
L H
H L
L L
L
S p
a in
L a ti
n E
u ro
p e
L H
L H
L H
L L
L
S w
ed en
N o rd
ic E
u ro
p e
H L
H L
H L
H L
L
T u
rk ey
A ra
b L
H L
H L
H L
L L
U K
A n
g lo
H H
L L
H H
H H
L U
S A
A n
g lo
L L
L L
L H
H H
H V
en ez
u el
a L
a ti
n A
m er
ic a
L H
L H
H H
L L
H
N o te s :
L o w
(L )
– in
d ex
sc o re
# m
ed ia
n ;
h ig
h (H
) –
in d
ex sc
o re
. m
ed ia
n
Table III. IMSS country classification by GLOBE societal cluster and cultural dimensions
IJOPM 31,5
538
U n
ce rt
a in
ty a v
o id
a n
ce P
o w
er d
is ta
n ce
C o ll
ec ti
v is
m in
st it
u ti
o n
a l
L o w
H ig
h T
o t.
S ig
. L
o w
H ig
h T
o t.
S ig
. L
o w
H ig
h T
o t.
S ig
.
Q u a li ty
p ri
o ri
ti es
C h
a n
g e
o f
p ri
o ri
ti es
o f
cu st
o m
er s
S u
p er
io r
p ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty 8 7
7 8
8 2
* 7 9
8 6
8 2
8 4
8 0
8 2
S u
p er
io r
co n
fo rm
a n
ce q
u a li
ty 8 3
8 0
8 2
* 7 9
8 5
8 2
8 5
7 8
8 2
* Im
p ro
v em
en t
g o a ls
in th
e n
ex t
th re
e y
ea rs
M a n
u fa
ct u
ri n
g co
n fo
rm a n
ce 1 0 0
0 8 3
0 1 0 0
8 3
1 0 0
0 8 3
* P
ro d
u ct
q u
a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y 7 8
6 8
7 2
* *
6 2
7 8
7 2
* 7 7
6 7
7 2
* *
Q u a li ty
p ra
ct ic
es M
a in
te n
a n
ce P
re v
en ti
v e
(% )
4 2
4 8
4 5
* 4 7
4 2
4 5
* 4 2
4 8
4 5
* C
o rr
ec ti
v e
(% )
5 8
5 2
5 5
* 5 3
5 8
5 5
* 5 8
5 2
5 5
* Q
u a li
ty co
st s
In sp
ec ti
o n
(% )
3 6
3 3
3 5
3 3
3 7
3 5
* 3 7
3 2
3 5
E x
te rn
a l
(% )
1 6
2 0
1 8
* 2 0
1 5
1 8
* 1 6
2 0
1 8
Q u
a li
ty a n
d su
p p
li er
se le
ct io
n 9 1
8 5
8 8
* 8 6
9 0
8 8
9 1
8 6
8 8
Q u
a li
ty im
p ro
v em
en t
a n
d co
n tr
o l
p ro
g ra
m s
C u
rr en
t u
se 3 9
3 6
3 7
* 3 5
4 0
3 7
4 0
3 5
3 7
F u
tu re
u se
6 4
6 0
6 2
* 6 0
6 5
6 2
6 5
6 0
6 2
* E
q u
ip m
en t
p ro
d u
ct iv
it y
p ro
g ra
m s
C u
rr en
t u
se 3 2
2 8
3 0
* 2 8
3 2
3 0
3 1
2 9
3 0
* E
n v
ir o n
m en
ta l
p er
fo rm
a n
ce p
ro g
ra m
s C
u rr
en t
u se
3 3
2 1
2 7
2 1
3 6
2 7
* 3 3
2 2
2 7
* F
u tu
re u
se 4 9
2 5
3 6
* *
2 6
4 8
3 6
* *
4 5
2 6
3 6
* *
C o ll
ec ti
v is
m g
ro u
p G
en d
er eg
a li
ta ri
a n
is m
L o w
H ig
h T
o t.
S ig
. L
o w
H ig
h T
o t.
S ig
. Q
u a li ty
p ri
o ri
ti es
C h
a n
g e
o f
p ri
o ri
ti es
o f
cu st
o m
er s
S u
p er
io r
p ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty 7 9
8 6
8 2
7 9
8 5
8 2
S u
p er
io r
co n
fo rm
a n
ce q
u a li
ty 8 1
8 2
8 2
8 1
8 2
8 2
Im p
ro v
em en
t g
o a ls
in th
e n
ex t
th re
e y
ea rs
M a n
u fa
ct u
ri n
g co
n fo
rm a n
ce 0
1 0 0
8 3
1 0 0
0 8 3
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
Table IV. Quality priorities,
practices and performance and GLOBE
cultural dimensions
Quality management
539
U n
ce rt
a in
ty a v
o id
a n
ce P
o w
er d
is ta
n ce
C o ll
ec ti
v is
m in
st it
u ti
o n
a l
L o w
H ig
h T
o t.
S ig
. L
o w
H ig
h T
o t.
S ig
. L
o w
H ig
h T
o t.
S ig
.
P ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y 6 8
7 8
8 2
* 6 8
7 6
7 2
* Q
u a li ty
p ra
ct ic
es M
a in
te n
a n
ce P
re v
en ti
v e
(% )
4 7
4 3
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
C o rr
ec ti
v e
(% )
5 3
5 7
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
Q u
a li
ty co
st s
In sp
ec ti
o n
(% )
3 3
3 6
3 5
3 6
3 3
3 5
E x
te rn
a l
(% )
1 9
1 6
1 8
1 7
1 8
1 8
Q u
a li
ty a n
d su
p p
li er
se le
ct io
n 8 6
8 9
8 8
8 7
8 8
8 8
Q u
a li
ty im
p ro
v em
en t
a n
d co
n tr
o l
p ro
g ra
m s
C u
rr en
t u
se 3 4
4 0
3 7
4 0
3 5
3 7
F u
tu re
u se
5 9
6 5
6 2
6 0
6 4
6 2
E q
u ip
m en
t p
ro d
u ct
iv it
y p
ro g
ra m
s C
u rr
en t
u se
2 6
3 4
3 0
* 3 1
2 8
3 0
E n
v ir
o n
m en
ta l
p er
fo rm
a n
ce p
ro g
ra m
s C
u rr
en t
u se
1 9
3 6
2 7
* 3 0
2 5
2 7
F u
tu re
u se
2 1
5 1
3 6
* *
4 5
2 6
3 6
* *
N o te :
S ig
n ifi
ca n
ce a t:
* p ,
0 .0
1 a n
d *
* p ,
0 .0
0 1
Table IV.
IJOPM 31,5
540
A ss
er ti
v en
es s
F u
tu re
o ri
en ta
ti o n
P er
fo rm
a n
ce o ri
en ta
ti o n
H u
m a n
e o ri
en ta
ti o n
L o w
H ig
h T
o t.
S ig
. L
o w
H ig
h T
o t.
S ig
. L
o w
H ig
h T
o t.
S ig
. L
o w
H ig
h T
o t.
S ig
.
Q u a li ty
p ri
o ri
ti es
C h
a n
g e
o f
p ri
o ri
ti es
o f
cu st
o m
er s
S u
p er
io r
p ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty 8 3
8 2
8 2
8 4
8 1
8 2
8 7
7 7
8 2
* 8 4
7 9
8 2
S u
p er
io r
co n
fo rm
a n
ce q
u a li
ty 8 4
7 8
8 2
8 3
8 0
8 2
8 7
7 6
8 2
* *
8 2
8 1
8 2
Im p
ro v
em en
t g
o a ls
in th
e n
ex t
th re
e y
ea rs
P ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y 7 3
7 1
7 2
7 5
6 8
7 2
7 9
6 5
7 2
* *
7 4
6 9
7 2
Q u a li ty
p ra
ct ic
es M
a in
te n
a n
ce P
re v
en ti
v e
(% )
4 3
4 7
4 5
4 3
4 6
4 5
4 1
4 9
4 5
* *
4 3
4 9
4 5
* C
o rr
ec ti
v e(
% )
5 7
5 3
5 5
5 7
5 4
5 5
5 9
5 1
5 5
* *
5 7
5 1
5 5
* Q
u a li
ty co
st s
P re
v en
ti v
e (%
) 2 3
2 5
2 4
2 4
2 3
2 4
2 3
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 6
2 4
* Q
u a li
ty a n
d su
p p
li er
se le
ct io
n 8 7
8 9
8 8
8 9
8 7
8 8
9 1
8 4
8 8
* 8 8
8 7
8 8
Q u
a li
ty im
p ro
v em
en t
a n
d co
n tr
o l
p ro
g ra
m s
C u
rr en
t u
se 3 0
4 5
3 7
* *
3 9
3 5
3 7
3 7
3 7
3 7
3 8
3 6
3 7
F u
tu re
u se
6 0
6 5
6 2
6 5
6 0
6 2
6 8
5 7
6 2
* 6 4
6 0
6 2
E q
u ip
m en
t p
ro d
u ct
iv it
y p
ro g
ra m
s C
u rr
en t
u se
2 9
3 1
3 0
3 3
2 7
3 0
* 3 1
2 9
3 0
3 0
3 0
3 0
F u
tu re
u se
5 8
5 2
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
6 7
4 8
5 5
* *
5 9
5 6
5 5
E n
v ir
o n
m en
ta l
p er
fo rm
a n
ce p
ro g
ra m
s C
u rr
en t
u se
2 6
2 9
2 7
3 3
2 1
2 7
* *
3 8
1 7
2 7
* *
3 2
1 9
2 7
F u
tu re
u se
3 3
3 9
3 6
4 9
2 2
3 6
* *
4 5
2 6
3 6
* *
3 8
3 3
3 6
C o n
ti n
u o u
s im
p ro
v em
en t
p ro
g ra
m s
F u
tu re
u se
5 8
6 0
5 9
5 4
6 4
5 9
* 6 2
5 6
5 9
6 1
5 6
5 9
N o te :
S ig
n ifi
ca n
ce a t:
* p ,
0 .0
1 a n
d *
* p ,
0 .0
0 1
Table V. Quality priorities,
practices and performance and GLOBE
cultural dimensions
Quality management
541
level of certainty in their business environment. As for quality practices, low uncertainty avoidance countries tend to invest relatively more in corrective maintenance while high uncertainty avoidance countries spend relatively more in preventive maintenance and external quality costs. This could reflect a mechanism of better fit to accommodate two radically different attitudes toward risk as widely documented in the literature. Surprisingly, low uncertainty avoidance countries attribute more importance to quality in supplier selection as well as to current and future use of all action programs except for future use of equipment productivity programs and continuous improvement programs. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that uncertainty avoidance has an impact on quality management. Our findings, however, do not support those of Snell and Hui (2000), Lagrosen (2002) and Flynn and Saladin (2006) according to whom high uncertainty avoidance (as meant by Hofstede) leads to more concern for quality and more extensive implementation of quality programmes. On the contrary, our findings show that countries characterised by low uncertainty avoidance seem to be more concerned with quality management.
Hypothesis 2 In relation to quality priorities, high power distance countries attribute more importance to product quality and reliability. This could reflect a mechanism of compensation whereby the higher commitment of high power distance countries to quality priorities could be explained as a deliberate strategy to counterbalance the high degree of centralisation. In terms of quality practices, low power distance countries tend to spend relatively more in preventive maintenance and external quality costs, while high power distance countries tend to spend relatively more in corrective maintenance and inspection costs. This could reflect a mechanism of better fit since these costs are inevitably associated with high levels of centralisation. High power distance countries are also more committed to action programs, in relation to both current and future use of environmental performance programs. The higher commitment of high power distance countries to these action programs could be explained by a mechanism of compensation whereby workers do not possess the effective tools for effective process management because of the high degree of centralisation. As found by Flynn and Saladin (2006) and Wacker and Sprague (1998), our findings confirm that a more extensive use of action programs could be a suitable means to overcome the limitations that a higher level of centralisation often entails. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that power distance has an impact on quality management. Our findings support Wacker and Sprague (1998), Snell and Hui (2000), Flynn and Saladin (2006) as well as Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) according to whom high power distance (as meant by Hofstede) leads to more concern for quality and to a more extensive implementation of quality programmes.
Hypothesis 3 In relation to quality priorities, countries characterised by low institutional collectivism attribute relatively more importance to superior quality. In relation to improvement goals in the next three years, they also attribute greater importance to the goals of improvement in manufacturing conformance and product quality and reliability. This could reflect a mechanism of compensation whereby the higher commitment of countries characterised by low collectivism to quality priorities could be explained as a deliberate strategy to counterbalance the lack of a cohesive collective action. As for quality practices, countries
IJOPM 31,5
542
characterised by low institutional collectivism have a greater proportion of maintenance costs associated with corrective maintenance while countries characterised by high institutional collectivism have a greater proportion associated with preventive maintenance. This could be explained by a mechanism of compensation where countries characterised by low institutional collectivism need to allocate relatively more to corrective maintenance to overcome the ineffectiveness that a less cohesive collective action inevitably entails. Countries characterised by low institutional collectivism are also more committed to future use of quality improvement and control programs, current use of equipment productivity programs and both current and future use of environmental performance programs. This could be explained by a mechanism of compensation where countries characterised by low institutional collectivism need to rely more on action programs to overcome the ineffectiveness that a weaker collective action inevitably entails. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that institutional collectivism has an impact on quality management. Our findings do not support those of Snell and Hui (2000) and Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) according to whom countries characterised by high collectivism (as meant by Hofstede) leads to more concern for quality and to a more extensive implementation of quality programmes.
Hypothesis 4 In relation to quality priorities, countries characterised by high in-group collectivism rate improvement in product quality and reliability as a more important improvement goal. This could reflect a better fit given that strategic planning is consistent with collectivism. As for quality practices, countries characterised by high in-group collectivism show relatively more commitment towards the current use of equipment productivity programs and current and future use of environmental performance programs. The higher commitment and less myopic approach of high collectivist countries to action programs could be explained by a better fit given that strategic planning is consistent with collectivism. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that in-group collectivism has an impact on quality management. Our findings support Snell and Hui (2000) as well as Anwar and Jabnoun (2006) according to whom countries characterised by high collectivism (as meant by Hofstede) leads to more concern for quality and to a more extensive implementation of quality programmes.
Hypothesis 5 Gender egalitarianism has an impact on quality priorities with countries displaying higher gender egalitarianism attributing relatively more importance to product quality and reliability as a future improvement goal. There are no significant differences in quality practices between countries on this cultural dimension with the exception of the level of commitment towards the future use of environmental performance programs where countries with low gender egalitarianism report relatively more commitment towards their future use. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that gender egalitarianism has an impact on quality management. However, if we assume that high gender egalitarianism could be an indication of low masculinity (as meant by Hofstede) our findings support Wacker and Sprague (1998), according to whom feminine countries tend to rely more extensively on external information, in this case in the use of quality programmes. In the same way, our findings offer some support for the view that low masculinity countries should be more environmentally concerned (Yoo et al., 2005).
Quality management
543
Hypothesis 6 Our analysis does not offer any evidence that assertiveness significantly affects quality priorities. Apart from the current use of quality improvement and control programs where countries displaying high assertiveness show relatively more commitment towards their use, there are no significant differences in quality practices between countries on this cultural dimension. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that assertiveness has an impact on quality management. Although assertiveness is often associated with masculinity (Wacker and Sprague, 1998; Yoo et al., 2005), our findings show that assertiveness has a limited impact on quality practices and quality performance.
Hypothesis 7 Our analysis reveals no significant differences in quality priorities amongst countries on future orientation. As for quality practices, countries characterised by low future orientation are likely to show more commitment towards the current use of equipment productivity programs, current and future use of environmental performance programs and future use of continuous improvement programs. This could be explained by a mechanism of compensation where countries characterised by low future orientation need to rely more on action programs to overcome their lack of long-term planning. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that future orientation has an impact on quality management.
Hypothesis 8 In relation to quality priorities, perhaps surprisingly low performance orientation countries attribute relatively more importance to superior product quality and superior conformance quality. When prompted about improvement goals in the next three years low performance orientation countries are more likely to consider product quality and reliability to be a more important goal than their counterparts. As for quality practices, low performance orientation countries incur a greater proportion of maintenance costs in corrective maintenance and attribute more importance to quality when selecting suppliers. They also show more commitment towards the future use of quality improvement and control as well as equipment productivity programs. They are also more likely to be engaged in both current and future use of environmental performance programs. This could reflect a compensation mechanism whereby countries characterised by low performance orientation need to overcome their lack of incentives for quality improvement. By contrast, high performance orientation countries spend relatively more on preventive maintenance. This could reflect a better fit where higher preventive maintenance costs are aligned with rewarding and promoting excellence. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that performance orientation has an impact on quality management.
Hypothesis 9 There are no significant differences in quality priorities among countries on humane orientation. In relation to quality practices, countries with lower humane orientation incur a greater proportion of quality costs in corrective quality costs. By contrast, countries characterised by high humane orientation incur a greater proportion of their maintenance and quality costs in preventive maintenance and quality costs. This could reflect a compensation mechanism where low humane orientation countries are forced to engage more in quality practices to overcome the externalities that less cohesive
IJOPM 31,5
544
social networks often entail. From the above analysis, we accept the hypothesis that humane orientation has an impact on quality management.
6. Discussion and conclusions Our analysis indicates that quality priorities tend to vary across GLOBE’s cultural dimensions. In particular, the dimensions of uncertainty avoidance, institutional collectivism and performance orientation have a highly significant impact on quality priorities. Our analysis also indicates that quality practices tend to vary considerably across GLOBE’s cultural dimensions. In particular, performance orientation, uncertainty avoidance, power distance and institutional collectivism have a highly significant impact on quality practices.
The “culture-specific” perspective contends that even if managers located in different societies face similar imperatives for change, deeply embedded cultural factors will still affect the way managers approach quality and react to the need for change. By providing some empirical evidence to support this perspective, our findings also raise the interesting issue of whether this perception of relative emphasis stems from a better fit between practice or priority and the national cultural dimension positioning or from a compensation by which firms engage in quality practices as a deliberate attempt to compensate for specific limitations of any of their cultural dimensions. A fuller appreciation of the mechanisms either of better fit or compensation would help firms to better align their quality priorities towards the attainment of improved quality practices. In this sense, GLOBE offers a more comprehensive taxonomy that addresses this need. It also provides a more accurate insight into better fit and compensation mechanisms to the one offered by Hofstede’s simpler classification.
For example, while previous research adopting Hofstede has shown that high collectivism is often associated with more extensive quality management implementation (Snell and Hui, 2000; Anwar and Jabnoun, 2006), our findings show that this is the case for in-group collectivism but not for countries when characterised by institutional collectivism. This discrepancy could be explained on the basis that countries characterised by low institutional collectivism may engage more with quality management as a result of compensation; vice versa countries characterised by high in-group collectivism may engage more with quality management as a result of better fit.
The variations reported in quality priorities and practices lend support to the “culture-specific” perspective. Our analysis of the data leads us to endorse the idea that through an accumulation of scientific knowledge relevant to the applicability of quality management across national settings, we can also help managers to better understand how to transfer best quality management practices from one country to another.
Differently, from existing research (Mathews et al., 2001; Anwar and Jobnoun, 2006) which claims that there is no single national culture that is conducive to better quality management, our findings show the contrary. In particular, both the holistic and the prescriptive nature of our framework allow us to identify those countries in our survey that seem to be more suitable to implement quality management. More specifically as shown on Table VI, countries that are characterised by low uncertainty avoidance, low institutional collectivism and low performance orientation seem to place more emphasis on quality priorities. None of the IMSS countries in our sample present the combination of these cultural dimensions. Countries that are characterised by low uncertainty avoidance, high power distance, low institutional collectivism, low future orientation and low
Quality management
545
U n
ce rt
a in
ty a v
o id
a n
ce P
o w
er d
is ta
n ce
C o ll
ec ti
v is
m in
st it
u ti
o n
a l
C o ll
ec ti
v is
m in
/G ro
u p
G en
d er
eg a li
ta ri
a n
is m
A ss
er ti
v en
es s
F u
tu re
o ri
en ta
ti o n
P er
fo rm
a n
ce o ri
en ta
ti o n
H u
m a n
e o ri
en ta
ti o n
L H
L H
L H
H L
H H
L H
L H
L H
Q u a li ty
p ri
o ri
ti es
C h
a n
g e
o f
p ri
o ri
ti es
o f
cu st
o m
er s
S u
p er
io r
p ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty S
u p
er io
r co
n fo
rm a n
ce q
u a li
ty
S u
p er
io r
co n
fo rm
a n
ce q
u a li
ty
S u
p er
io r
p ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty S
u p
er io
r co
n fo
rm a n
ce q
u a li
ty Im
p ro
v em
en t
g o a ls
in th
e n
ex t
th re
e y
ea rs
P ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y
P ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y
M a n
u fa
ct u
ri n
g co
n fo
rm a n
ce p
ro d
u ct
q u
a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y
P ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y
P ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y
P ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y
Q u a li ty
p ra
ct ic
es M
a in
te n
a n
ce C
o rr
ec ti
v e
P re
v en
ti v
e P
re v
en ti
v e
C o rr
ec ti
v e
C o rr
ec ti
v e
P re
v en
ti v
e C
o rr
ec ti
v e
P re
v en
ti v
e C
o rr
ec ti
v e
P re
v en
ti v
e Q
u a li
ty co
st s
E x
te rn
a l
E x
te rn
a l
In sp
ec ti
o n
P re
v en
ti v
e Q
u a li
ty a n
d su
p p
li er
se le
ct io
n
Q u
a li
ty a n
d su
p p
li er
se le
ct io
n
Q u
a li
ty im
p ro
v em
en t
a n
d co
n tr
o l
p ro
g ra
m s
C u
rr en
t a n
d fu
ru re
F u
tu re
C u
rr en
t F
u tu
re
E q
u ip
m en
t p
ro d
u ct
iv it
y p
ro g
ra m
s
C u
rr en
t C
u rr
en t
C u
rr en
t C
u rr
en t
F u
tu re
E n
v ir
o n
m en
ta l
p er
fo rm
a n
ce p
ro g
ra m
s
F u
tu re
C u
rr en
t a n
d F
u tu
re
C u
rr en
t a n
d F
u tu
re C
u rr
en t
a n
d F
u tu
re F
u tu
re C
u rr
en t
a n
d F
u tu
re
C u
rr en
t a n
d F
u tu
re
C o n
ti n
u o u
s im
p ro
v em
en t
p ro
g ra
m s
F u
tu re
F u
tu re
Table VI. Impact of GLOBE cultural dimensions on quality management
IJOPM 31,5
546
performance orientation seem to place more emphasis on quality practices. Therefore, countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Venezuela appear to be more suited to the implementation of quality practices. Overall, in terms of quality management, countries characterised by low uncertainty avoidance, high power distance, low institutional collectivism, high in-group collectivism, low gender egalitarianism, high assertiveness, low future orientation, low performance orientation and low human orientation seem better placed to deal with quality management.
For instance, the nine cultural dimensions that characterise Brazil (Table II) make the country particularly suitable for implementing quality management in Latin America. The same consideration applies to Greece (apart from assertiveness) for Eastern Europe, Spain for Latin Europe and Turkey for the Arab cluster.
Additionally, we are able to identify which element in terms of priorities and practices should be modified during the transfer process to maximise the opportunity to achieve improved quality practices. In this sense, more attention to the cultural impacts on quality management and performance may reap rich rewards in terms of effective implementation of quality practices and accordingly outstanding quality performance.
Based on the cultural dimensions suggested by GLOBE (House et al., 2004), this study shows that national culture is a valid construct to explain quality management. While some previous research portrays quality management as a comprehensive management paradigm with elements and relationships that transcend cultural and national boundaries, the current study provides evidence that the adoption of certain quality practices across different countries can follow distinctive patterns.
This study uses national culture as a means of explaining differences in quality management. As shown in Table VII, the results of this study reveal that some cultures implement specific quality programs more than others, different aspects of national culture appear to have facilitating or inhibiting consequences for the implementation of quality management.
Although quality management may be viewed as a vehicle for change, research indicates that national culture is highly resistant to change (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004). Thus, although quality practices can be easily changed, the fundamental values that underlie those practices are very difficult to change. This would suggest a strong need for global firms to adapt their quality practices to the local national culture. This does not necessarily entail compromising the integrity of their world-wide quality management policies, rather they should develop programs that can be most effectively implemented in the local culture.
While the results have clearly indicated the significant relationship between cultural dimensions and quality management, several limitations need to be addressed in future research to confirm our findings. First, we assume that national culture is the same for all plants within a particular country. However, it is possible that different corporate, organisational, industrial and/or sectoral cultures may co-exist within the same firm and might conflict and counterbalance the national one. Furthermore, today in many IMSS countries such as Canada, Israel and Belgium different ethnic or national cultures co-exist (Tsui et al., 2007). This is likely to be intensified as the result of increased human mobility that globalisation entails. In particular, within the same country different sub-cultures might persist, but they might also still stand apart for religious reasons (e.g. Ireland), because of their language (e.g. Belgium) or their ethnicity (the USA, France and Turkey). In this sense, the nine dimensions of national cultures could be far from
Quality management
547
C u
lt u
ra l
d im
en si
o n
F in
d in
g s
L o w
u n
ce rt
a in
ty a v
o id
a n
ce cu
lt u
re s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
P ri
o ri
ti ze
su p
er io
r p
ro d
u ct
q u
a li
ty a n
d su
p er
io r
co n
fo rm
a n
ce q
u a li
ty A
sc ri
b e
im p
o rt
a n
ce to
p ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y a s
im p
ro v
em en
t g
o a ls
A ll
o ca
te re
so u
rc es
to co
rr ec
ti v
e m
a in
te n
a n
ce E
n g
a g
e in
q u
a li
ty im
p ro
v em
en t
a n
d co
n tr
o l
p ro
g ra
m s
n o w
a n
d in
th e
fu tu
re E
n g
a g
e in
eq u
ip m
en t
p ro
d u
ct iv
it y
p ro
g ra
m s
E n
g a g
e in
en v
ir o n
m en
ta l
p er
fo rm
a n
ce p
ro g
ra m
s in
th e
fu tu
re H
ig h
u n
ce rt
a in
ty a v
o id
a n
ce co
u n
tr ie
s (a
re m
o re
li k
el y
to ):
A ll
o ca
te re
so u
rc es
to p
re v
en ti
v e
m a in
te n
a n
ce A
cc o u
n t
fo r
a g
re a te
r p
ro p
o rt
io n
o f
th ei
r q
u a li
ty co
st s
w it
h ex
te rn
a l
co st
s P
la ce
g re
a te
r im
p o rt
a n
ce o n
q u
a li
ty in
su p
p li
er se
le ct
io n
L o w
p o w
er d
is ta
n ce
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
A ll
o ca
te re
so u
rc es
to p
re v
en ti
v e
m a in
te n
a n
ce P
la ce
g re
a te
r im
p o rt
a n
ce o n
q u
a li
ty in
su p
p li
er se
le ct
io n
H ig
h p
o w
er d
is ta
n ce
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
A sc
ri b
e im
p o rt
a n
ce to
p ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y a s
im p
ro v
em en
t g
o a ls
A ll
o ca
te re
so u
rc es
to co
rr ec
ti v
e m
a in
te n
a n
ce A
cc o u
n t
fo r
a g
re a te
r p
ro p
o rt
io n
o f
th ei
r q
u a li
ty co
st s
w it
h in
sp ec
ti o n
co st
s E
n g
a g
e in
en v
ir o n
m en
ta l
p er
fo rm
a n
ce p
ro g
ra m
s n
o w
a n
d in
th e
fu tu
re L
o w
co ll
ec ti
v is
m in
st it
u ti
o n
a l
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
P ri
o ri
ti ze
su p
er io
r co
n fo
rm a n
ce q
u a li
ty A
sc ri
b e
im p
o rt
a n
ce to
m a n
u fa
ct u
ri n
g co
n fo
rm a n
ce a n
d p
ro d
u ct
q u
a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y a s
im p
ro v
em en
t g
o a ls
A ll
o ca
te re
so u
rc es
to co
rr ec
ti v
e m
a in
te n
a n
ce E
n g
a g
e in
q u
a li
ty im
p ro
v em
en t
a n
d co
n tr
o l
p ro
g ra
m s
in th
e fu
tu re
E n
g a g
e in
eq u
ip m
en t
p ro
d u
ct iv
it y
p ro
g ra
m s
E n
g a g
e in
en v
ir o n
m en
ta l
p er
fo rm
a n
ce p
ro g
ra m
s n
o w
a n
d in
th e
fu tu
re H
ig h
co ll
ec ti
v is
m in
st it
u ti
o n
a l
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
A ll
o ca
te re
so u
rc es
to p
re v
en ti
v e
m a in
te n
a n
ce H
ig h
co ll
ec ti
v is
m in
g ro
u p
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
A sc
ri b
e im
p o rt
a n
ce to
p ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y a s
im p
ro v
em en
t g
o a ls
E n
g a g
e in
eq u
ip m
en t
p ro
d u
ct iv
it y
p ro
g ra
m s
E n
g a g
e in
en v
ir o n
m en
ta l
p er
fo rm
a n
ce p
ro g
ra m
s n
o w
a n
d in
th e
fu tu
re
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
Table VII. Impact of GLOBE cultural dimensions on quality management
IJOPM 31,5
548
C u
lt u
ra l
d im
en si
o n
F in
d in
g s
L o w
g en
d er
eg a li
ta ri
a n
is m
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
E n
g a g
e in
en v
ir o n
m en
ta l
p er
fo rm
a n
ce p
ro g
ra m
s in
th e
fu tu
re H
ig h
g en
d er
eg a li
ta ri
a n
is m
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
A sc
ri b
e im
p o rt
a n
ce to
p ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y a s
im p
ro v
em en
t g
o a ls
H ig
h a ss
er ti
v en
es s
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
E n
g a g
e in
q u
a li
ty im
p ro
v em
en t
a n
d co
n tr
o l
p ro
g ra
m s
in th
e fu
tu re
L o w
fu tu
re o ri
en ta
ti o n
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
E n
g a g
e in
eq u
ip m
en t
p ro
d u
ct iv
it y
p ro
g ra
m s
E n
g a g
e in
en v
ir o n
m en
ta l
p er
fo rm
a n
ce p
ro g
ra m
s n
o w
a n
d in
th e
fu tu
re H
ig h
fu tu
re o ri
en ta
ti o n
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
E n
g a g
e in
co n
ti n
u o u
s im
p ro
v em
en t
p ro
g ra
m s
in th
e fu
tu re
L o w
p er
fo rm
a n
ce o ri
en ta
ti o n
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
P ri
o ri
ti ze
su p
er io
r p
ro d
u ct
q u
a li
ty a n
d su
p er
io r
co n
fo rm
a n
ce q
u a li
ty A
sc ri
b e
im p
o rt
a n
ce to
p ro
d u
ct q
u a li
ty a n
d re
li a b
il it
y a s
im p
ro v
em en
t g
o a ls
A ll
o ca
te re
so u
rc es
to co
rr ec
ti v
e m
a in
te n
a n
ce P
la ce
g re
a te
r im
p o rt
a n
ce o n
q u
a li
ty in
su p
p li
er se
le ct
io n
E n
g a g
e in
q u
a li
ty im
p ro
v em
en t
a n
d co
n tr
o l
p ro
g ra
m s
in th
e fu
tu re
E n
g a g
e in
eq u
ip m
en t
p ro
d u
ct iv
it y
p ro
g ra
m s
in th
e fu
tu re
E n
g a g
e in
en v
ir o n
m en
ta l
p er
fo rm
a n
ce p
ro g
ra m
s n
o w
a n
d in
th e
fu tu
re E
n g
a g
e in
co n
ti n
u o u
s im
p ro
v em
en t
p ro
g ra
m s
in th
e fu
tu re
H ig
h p
er fo
rm a n
ce o ri
en ta
ti o n
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
A ll
o ca
te re
so u
rc es
to p
re v
en ti
v e
m a in
te n
a n
ce L
o w
h u
m a n
e o ri
en ta
ti o n
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
m o re
li k
el y
to ):
A ll
o ca
te re
so u
rc es
to co
rr ec
ti v
e m
a in
te n
a n
ce H
ig h
h u
m a n
e o ri
en ta
ti o n
co u
n tr
ie s
(a re
o re
li k
el y
to ):
A ll
o ca
te re
so u
rc es
to p
re v
en ti
v e
m a in
te n
a n
ce A
cc o u
n t
fo r
a g
re a te
r p
ro p
o rt
io n
o f
th ei
r q
u a li
ty co
st s
w it
h p
re v
en ti
v e
co st
s
Table VII.
Quality management
549
being reliable proxies for cultural homogeneity for a given national culture. In particular, future research needs to focus on the true blending of cultures and managerial values that may affect quality management. Second, since our sample is biased towards best-performing firms, future research should target all kinds of firms regardless of their performance. This should provide a more robust representation of the state of the art of quality management across different national cultures.
References
Abdul-Aziz, Z., Chan, J.F.L. and Metcalfe, A.V. (2000), “Quality practices in the manufacturing industry in the UK and Malaysia”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 1053-64.
Anwar, S.A. and Jabnoun, N. (2006), “The development of a contingency model relating national culture to total quality management”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 272-80.
Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2001), Quantitaive Data Analysis, Routledge, London.
Child, J. and Kieser, A. (1979), “Organisational and management roles in British and German companies: an examination of the culture-free thesis”, in Lammus, C.J. and Hickson, D.J. (Eds), Organisations Alike and Unlike, Routledge, London.
Chin, K.S., Sun, H., Xu, Y. and Hua, H. (2002), “A comparative study of quality management practices in Hong Kong and Shanghai manufacturing industries”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 576-81.
Corbett, L.M., Adam, E.E., Harrison, N.J., Lee, T.S., Rho, B.H. and Samson, D. (1998), “A study of quality management practices and performance in Asia and the South Pacific”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 2597-607.
Crawford, K.M., Blackstone, J.H. Jr and Cox, J.F. (1988), “A study of JIT implementation and operating problems”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 1561-8.
Cua, K.O., McKone, K.E. and Schroeder, R.G. (2001), “Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 675-94.
Davison, L. and Al-Shaghana, K. (2007), “The link between Six-Sigma and quality culture – an empirical study”, Total Quality Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 249-65.
Emery, F. (1990), “The nine-step model”, in Trist, E.L. and Murray, H. (Eds), The Social Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology: The Socio-Technical Perspective, Vol. 2, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Flynn, B.B. and Saladin, B. (2006), “Relevance of Baldridge constructs in an international context: a study of national culture”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 583-603.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994), “The impact of quality management practices on performance and competitive advantage”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 659-91.
Form, W. (1979), “Comparative industrial sociology and the convergence hypothesis”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 5, pp. 1-25.
Frohlich, M. and Robb Dixon, J. (2001), “A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies revisited”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 541-58.
Frohlich, M. and Westbrook, R. (2001), “Arcs of integration: an international study of supply chain strategies”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 185-200.
Fynes, B. (1998), “Quality management practices: a review of the literature”, Irish Business and Administrative Research, Vol. 19-20 No. 2, pp. 113-38.
IJOPM 31,5
550
Gallear, D. and Ghobadian, A. (2004), “An empirical investigation of the channels that facilitate a total quality culture”, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 1043-67.
Garg, R. and Ma, J. (2005), “Benchmarking culture and performance in Chinese organisations”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 260-74.
Gaski, J.F. and Etzel, M.J. (1986), “The index of consumer sentiment toward marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 71-81.
Grossler, A. and Grubner, A. (2006), “An empirical model of the relationships between manufacturing capabilities”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 458-85.
Hardie, N. and Walsh, P. (1994), “Towards a better understanding of quality”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 54-60.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage, London.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organizations Across Countries, Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G. (2006), “What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 882-96.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M. and Dorfman, P.W. (2002), “Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ismail, S. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2003), “Examination and comparison of the critical factors of total quality management (TQM) across countries”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 235-68.
Krosolid, D. (1999), “In search of quality management – rethinking and reinterpreting”, doctoral thesis, Institute of Technology, Linkoping University, Linkoping.
Lagrosen, S. (2002), “Quality management in Europe: a cultural perspective”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 275-83.
Lagrosen, S. (2003), “Exploring the impact of culture on quality management”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20 Nos 4/5, pp. 473-82.
Lindberg, P., Voss, C. and Blackmon, K. (1998), International Manufacturing Strategies: Context, Content, and Change, Kluwver, London.
Mathews, B.P., Ueno, A., Kekale, T., Repka, M., Lopes Pereira, Z. and Silva Graca, S. (2001), “European quality management practices: the impact of national culture”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 692-707.
Newman, K.L. and Nollen, S.D. (1996), “Culture and congruence: the fit between management practices and national culture”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 753-79.
Raghunathan, T.S., Subba Rao, S. and Solis, L.E. (1997), “A comparative study of quality practices: USA, China and India”, Industrial Management and Data System, Vol. 97 No. 5, pp. 192-202.
Reeves, C.A. and Bednar, D.A. (1994), “Defining quality: alternatives and implications”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 419-45.
Rehder, R.R. (1989), “Japanese transplants: in search of a balanced and broader perspective”, Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 17-28.
Quality management
551
Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., Koka, B.R., Salvadora, F. and Nie, W. (2005), “TQM across multiple countries: convergence hypothesis versus national specificity arguments”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 43-63.
Safayeni, F., Purdy, L., van Engelen, R. and Pal, S. (1991), “Difficulties of just-in-time implementation: a classification scheme”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 27-36.
Snell, R.S. and Hui, S.K.K. (2000), “Towards the Hong Kong learning organization: an exploratory case study”, Journal of Applied Management Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 150-75.
Souza-Poza, A., Nystrom, H. and Wiebe, H. (2000), “A cross-cultural study of the differing effects of corporate culture on TQM in three countries”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 744-61.
Subba Rao, S., Raghunathan, T.S. and Solis, L.E. (1997), “A comparative study of quality practices and results in India, China and Mexico”, Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 235-50.
Tata, J., Prasad, S. and Motwani, J. (2000), “Benchmarking quality management practices: US versus Costa Rica”, Multinational Business Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 37-42.
Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S. and Ou, A.Y. (2007), “Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: advances, gaps, and recommendations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 426-78.
Vereecke, A. and Muylle, S. (2006), “Performance improvement through supply chain collaboration in Europe”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 1176-98.
Voss, C. (2005), “Alternative paradigms for manufacturing strategies”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1211-22.
Wacker, J.F. and Sprague, L.G. (1998), “Forecasting accuracy: comparing the relative effectiveness of practices between seven developing countries”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 271-90.
Yoo, K.D., Subba Rao, S. and Hong, P. (2005), “A comparative study on cultural differences and quality practices: Korea, USA, Mexico and Taiwan”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 607-24.
Zhao, X., Maheshwari, S.K. and Zhang, J. (1995), “Benchmarking quality practices in India, China and Mexico”, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 20-32.
Further reading
Madu, C.N., Kuei, C. and Lin, C. (1995), “A comparative analysis of quality practice in manufacturing firms in the US and Taiwan”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 621-35.
Pagell, M., Katz, J.P. and Sheu, C. (2005), “The importance of national culture in operations management research”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 371-94.
Voss, C. and Blackmon, K. (1998), “Differences in manufacturing strategy decisions between Japanese and Western manufacturing plants: the role of strategic time orientation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 147-58.
Corresponding author Alessandra Vecchi can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
IJOPM 31,5
552
Appendix
IMSS IV Questions:
Quality Priorities
Consider the importance of the following attributes towin orders from your major customers.
Current importance Over thelast 3 years the goal has
Not important
Very important
become less important
stayed the same
become more
important
superior product design and quality 1 2 3 4 5 5 superior conformance quality 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5
How important are the following improvement goals for yourmanufacturing function for the next 3 years?
Not important Very important
Improving manufacturing conformance 1 2 3 4
2 3 4
5
Improving product quality and reliability 1 5
Quality Practices
What is the proportionof the maintenance budget spent onthe following activities? (adding up to100%)
Maintenance Preventive maintenance _____ % Corrective maintenance _____ %
100 %
What is the approximate proportionof quality costs (adding up to 100%)?
Quality cost Inspection/control costs (sampling, supervision, lab tests) _____ % Internal quality costs (e.g. scrap, losses) _____ % Preventive costs (training, documentation, preventive maintenance, etc.) _____ % External quality costs (e.g. warranty costs, returns, etc.) _____ %
100 %
What criteria do youuse for selecting your key/strategic suppliers? Level of importance
None High Quality of products/services offered 1 2 3 4 5
Indicate degree of the following action programmes undertaken over the last three years and planned efforts for the coming three years.
Degree of use last 3 years
None High
Planned effort within next 3 years None High
1 2 3 4 5 Undertaking programs for quality improvement and control (e.g. TQM
programs, 6 projects, quality circles, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Undertaking programs for the improvement of your equipment productivity
(e.g. Total Productive Maintenance programs) 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Undertaking programmes to improve environmental performance of processes
and products (e.g. environmental management system, Life-Cycle Analysis, Design for Environment, Environmental certification)
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Implementing Continuous Improvement Programs through systematic
initiatives (e.g. kaizen, improvement teams, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5
Quality management
553
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
