The role of organisational culture has received significant attention in the literature of CI. Past research has left little doubt that the meanings, values, beliefs, assumptions or understandings held by members of an organisation play a key role for the sustained effectiveness of CI. A conducive organisational culture is often seen a pre-requisite for successful CI in an organisation; Juran, for instance, argued that it required “a good deal of cultural change” (as cited in Spencer, 1994, p. 461). Culture (or the change thereof) is assumed to be a key element in the successful implementation of CI programmes (Vermeulen, 1997) and organisational performance (Lloréns Montes, Verdú Jover, & Molina Fernández, 2003).
Therefore it does not come as much of a surprise that “cultural mismatches” (Cassidy, 1996, p. 24) and the “inability to change organizational culture” (Masters, 1996, p. 53) ranked among the top stated reasons for the failure of TQM programmes in the past. Similarly, some argued that TQM fails because it does not adequately address the necessary cultural change in the organisation (Cao & McHugh, 2005).
Since the beginning of the 1980’s (most notably, Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Pettigrew, 1979), there has been extensive work on the topic of organisational culture. The attention in the field of OS has subsided somewhat in the 1990s (Martin, 2002), but ongoing publications and reprints show a sustained interest in the topic. In OM/QM research in particular, recent publications as well as dissertations underpin its importance.
Organisational culture is a complex subject; there are a great many different theoretical perspectives and ways to organise the topic. What follows is therefore not an exhaustive review; this has been done elsewhere (e.g. D. Lewis, 1996a, 1996b) and would justify a doctoral thesis in its own right.
2.2.1 Culture and CI – Commonalities and differences
It is important to note that the “natal hour” and heyday of organisational culture and QM coincided largely in the 1980s. The emergence of both movements is best seen in the light of the realisation by American companies of the superiority of Japanese competitors at that time (Morgan, 2006). Foundational works of the culture movement such as the work of Ouchi’s (1981) “Theory Z” or Peters and Waterman’s “In Search of Excellence” (1982) are still frequently cited in both culture and CI- related publications. This section works to explain the commonalities and differences between the two theoretical perspectives.
Both culture and quality/CI emphasise the importance of holistic and comprehensive perspectives on organisation. In turn, their boundaries are not clearly defined. In fact, the emergence of both culture and the quality movement can be regarded as a reaction to the failure of existing mechanistic approaches to organisation, or rather the study thereof.
Much of the momentum of the culture movement in OS originated from “a growing dissatisfaction with traditional research efforts, especially those grounded in essentially the positivistic views of organizations” (Louis, 1983, p. 39). Similarly, QM was deemed a “revolution in management” (Ishikawa, 1985). In OS the cultural perspective offered the opportunity to break out of the established mainstream, while the emerging quality movement provided an opportunity for a more holistic understanding of organisations. Put differently, both looked at the organisation in an unconventional and perhaps even fundamentally new way, thus enabling new insights but also causing resistance from the established fields.
Both culture and CI went through an early phase with exciting new insights and much attention from both practitioners and academics in the 1980s. This was followed by a phase when other scholars gradually entered the respective field and brought with them their more conventional research practice. For instance, this led Calás and Smircich, who made some of the most profound foundational contributions in cultural
research in the early 80s to state that organisational culture was “dominant but dead” (Calás & Smircich, 1987) by 1987.
Arguably, a cultural perspective essentially views culture as “root metaphor” (Smircich, 1983a) of an organisation, rather than one of many organisational variables. This has parallels in the quality movement, where quality is presented as a general way of organising (e.g., Deming, 1986), involving everybody in the organisation. Business Excellence frameworks that took up the quality and CI approach, such as the Malcolm Baldrige Award reflect this holistic approach which goes far beyond quality prescriptions (Jayamaha, Grigg, & Mann, 2008; NIST, 2010). Both quality and culture are ambiguous and imprecise concepts. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1963) listed as many as 164 different definitions of the term “culture” in the field of anthropology – and this was before the heyday of the culture movement in OS in the 1980s. The use of the term “culture” ranges from a mechanistic notion and interchangeably with “management system” (as in Mann, 2009) to the metaphorical use of the “more expressive social tissue around us that gives… tasks meaning” (Pettigrew, 1979, p. 574). Likewise, the term “quality management” is used for anything between a “toolkit” and an “integrated set of and mutually compatible basic assumptions” (Kujala & Lillrank, 2004, p. 43) and therefore has no “generally accepted definition or agreed content” (Foley, 2004, p. 21).
Perhaps the fact that both QM and culture are highly interdisciplinary is the reason why neither of them fitted neatly into existing scientific disciplines. For instance, Deming (1986) combined (psychological) motivational aspects with organisation strategy, leadership theory, statistics and industrial engineering. This unconventional approach evoked efforts by quality theorists to prove the validity of the claims, such as by Anderson and colleagues (Anderson, Rungtusanatham, & Schroeder, 1994; Anderson, Rungtusanatham, Schroeder, & Devaraj, 1995) or Samson and Terziovski (1999). Actually, due to the fact that QM did not fit well in any of the established management research disciplines it “is not universally or even widely accepted” (Foley, 2004, p. 21) today. Similarly, culture is an interdisciplinary phenomenon with
contributions from intellectually very diverse disciplines such as OS, sociology, anthropology or social and cognitive psychology (D. Lewis, 1998).
As diverse as the topic areas covered by both culture and quality, so are the research practices associated with it. While cognitive psychology applies strongly experimental and deductive (positivist) methods (e.g. Erez & Somech, 1996), anthropological studies of culture heavily rely on inductive, ethnographic (interpretive) approaches (for instance, Geertz, 2008). When OS started to use “culture” to examine the functioning of organisations, scholars adopted more interpretive methods, while later researchers often tended more toward positivist approaches (D. Lewis, 2002). The dispute around “adequate” research practice in cultural research in OS caused what would become known as the “paradigm wars” (see Denison, 1996; Martin & Frost, 1996). While the “deep disagreements about fundamental issues” (Martin, Frost, & O'Neill, 2006, p. 726) remain, the intensity of the debate has subsided (Martin, et al., 2006). Likewise, the adequacy of research practices in OM/QM research is a strongly debated topic (Hill, Nicholson, & Westbrook, 1999). In conclusion, in both fields there seems to be somewhat a dividing line between different camps in terms of research practice.
Both quality and culture combine “soft” and “hard” issues; QM spans domains as different as statistical process control and underlying, unconscious assumptions of a quality culture (Kujala & Lillrank, 2004). Similarly, culture is sometimes conceptualised in direct reference to behaviour (“the way we do things around here”) but more often refers to the ideational level of understandings, assumptions, meanings, or symbols.
Scholars of both culture and CI attribute different levels of tangibility to their subject matter. For example, Schein uses his widely-know onion model to conceptualise culture as consisting at its core of subconscious, deeply held assumptions. One level up, there are the espoused cultural values and at the surface the observable artefacts and behaviours (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Schein’s onion model of culture (left-hand side; source: Schein, 1985) and levels of QM (right-hand side; source: Lagrosen & Lagrosen, 2006)
Similarly, Hellsten and Klefsjö (2000) describe QM as a management system consisting of values, tools and techniques. Also describing multi-level qualities in terms of tangibility, Lagrosen and Lagrosen (2006) depict the levels of QM as displayed on the right hand side of Figure 3.
Culture and quality are considered to be both cause and effect (Denison, 1990, p. 176) in an organisation – both vehicle and precondition of organisational change at the same time. They both served as an explanatory variable for organisational performance (see for instance, Denison, 1990; Denison, Haaland, & Goelzer, 2004; Flynn, Sakakibara, & Schroeder, 1995; Naor, et al., 2008; Ni & Sun, 2009).
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there seems to be a considerable conceptual overlap between the QM and the cultural view on organisations. Madu (1997), for instance, states boldly “quality itself is a culture” (p. 279). Spencer (1994), on the other hand, approaches the conceptual overlap in a more sophisticated way. She examines the TQM construct from the viewpoint of the mechanistic, organismic and cultural models of organisation and concludes that, “when viewed as a philosophy or cultural change [as opposed to a mere set of procedures or tools] TQM has much in common with the cultural model” (p. 466).
Empirical research of Gallear and Ghobadian also confirms the “existence of a significant overlap between culture and TQM” (2004, p. 1060) in values and “way of working”. Lewis (1996a), on the other hand, argues that TQM and culture have different origins but the two perspectives merged eventually into the idea of “excellence” that can be achieved through cultural change. Similarly, Yokozawa, Steenhuis and de Bruijn (2008) make out a considerable amount of cultural elements within the concept of CI.
In conclusion, organisational culture and CI are perhaps best understood as inseparable terms: The purpose of CI initiatives such as TQM is to transform the organisation toward a “culture of CI” and effective CI requires a “conducive” organisational culture. As Ni and Sun (2009) describe it “CI definitely needs and will consequently induce a complete change in pattern of behaviour and culture" (p. 1043).
2.2.2 Conceptual contributions toward defining a culture of CI
The features of an organisational culture that is conducive to CI is the subject of a stream of conceptual2
Woods (1997), for instance, defines six values on which to “build a quality culture”, including “No subordinates or superiors allowed” or “Everyone has access to all information on all operations”. Organisational leadership is described as the main driver in implementing these values in the organisation’s culture.
research that I will review in this section. I will discuss several publications that, I think, can be seen as representative for a large number of conceptual contributions that tried to define a culture of CI.
2 It should be noted that some of the papers listed here as “conceptual” also included empirical work.
However, it was found that the conceptual contribution outweighs the empirical work and they are therefore listed as “conceptual”.
Similarly, Hellsten and Klefsjö (2000) delineate the values underlying TQM following largely Deming’s (1986) system perspective, ranging from “Improve continuously”, “Base decisions on facts” to “Top management commitment”.
Saraph and Sebastian (1993) provide a list of “universally desired quality values” (p. 74) and differentiate between management, employee, supplier-related, and customer-related values. The prescribed management and employee values are detailed in Table 2. The values start with “Managers must believe in continuous quality improvement” and continue with “Zero defects should be every employee’s goal” to “Continuous problem solving should be the norm”. Although more detailed than Hellsten and Klefsjö, their message is virtually identical: It is a catalogue of claims of the organisation toward the employee with the purpose to ensure smooth running of the organisation with regards to quality and CI.
Detert, Schroeder and Mauriel (2000) first propose a framework of “generalised” dimensions of organisational culture. Based on this framework, they then postulate an “ideal culture” for TQM based on considerations of value congruence between the organisational culture and underlying values of TQM, as listed in Table 2.
Jabnoun (2001) differentiates between CI driving and CI enabling values, but the values he lists, such as “Respect”, “Responsibility”, “Empathy” and “Humbleness” show a notably different quality from the ones listed up to this point. While the previous values evidently served a direct purpose in the organisation, the ones listed by Jabnoun have an element of humaneness.
Using Schein’s three-level cultural framework of assumptions, espoused values and artefacts, Kokt (2009) defined a whole list of desirable “espoused values” for the implementation of TQM in a South African security company. On closer inspection these “values” are a mix of almost technical prescriptions such as “Quality through continuous improvement” and generalised humanitarian claims such as “Human rights” or “Social responsibility”. Unfortunately the rationale for selecting these values is not explained and it remains unclear how these new “espoused values” are supposed to lead to cultural change. Lasting cultural change would, according to
Schein (1985), require changing the core of culture, the basic assumptions (cp. Figure 3).
Finally, other contributions give rather vague de- (or pre-)scriptions such as “open culture” (Irani, Beskese, & Love, 2004, p. 644).
Table 2: Values underlying CI-related initiatives (conceptual approaches) Woods
(1997) Hellsten and Klefsjö (2000)
Detert et al.
(2000) Jabnoun (2001) Kokt (2009) Saraph and Sebastian (1993) NIST (2010) core values and
concepts
We’re all in this together: company, suppliers, customers. No subordinates or superiors allowed. Open, honest communication is vital. Everyone has access to all information on all operations. Focus on processes. There are no successes or failures, just learning experiences. Top management commitment Improve continuously Focus on customers Focus on processes Base decisions in facts Let everybody be committed
Prioritizing the use of time leads to better results.
Long-run vision should drive short-run actions.
All work should be viewed, understood, and documented as a process. The organisation is an interconnected set of processes. Continuous improvement and innovation are a way of life.
Decisions are made that are customer focused and customer driven. CI driving values: Respect Responsibility Empathy CI enabling values: Humbleness Trust Openness Cooperation
Equality, opportunity and empowerment Excellence and innovation
Integrity
Quality through continuous improvement
Human rights
Honesty, reliability, discipline and loyalty
Investment in human capital Professional and ethical business Open and honest communication Comprehensible internal company/client philosophy
Human environment that allows for quality improvement
Shared vision and identity Social responsibility
Leadership and vision from the top. Active and visible participation from top management
Involvement and commitment from all employees
Diversity
Management values:
Managers must believe in continuous quality improvement
Managers must consider quality to be a strategic business variable
Quality must be a central organisational value for managers.
Line managers, rather than the quality staff organisation, are ultimately responsible for quality.
Employee values:
Every employee is responsible for the quality of his or her output.
Every employee must strive to do things right the first time by understanding internal and external customer requirements.
Zero defects should be every employee’s goal.
Every employee is authorized to stop production when it is not up o standards. Employee participation is very important in the quality improvement process Continuous problem solving should be the norm. Visionary leadership Customer-driven excellence Organizational and personal learning Valuing workforce members and partners Agility
Focus on the future Managing for innovation Management by fact Societal responsibility Focus on results and creating value Systems perspective
It should be noted that most of the cited literature referred to the concept of TQM. There is a similar discussion with reference to other concepts that centre around the theme of CI, such as Lean Production. For instance, Pettersen (2009a) compares the philosophies and values underlying the TQM and Lean Production approaches and consequently urges practitioners to examine the organisational context with regard to values in order to increase the odds of successful implementations.
In conclusion, conceptual contributions mostly emphasise the universal applicability of CI values and thereby follow the ideological footsteps of the fathers of the quality movement. They reflect what Bright and Cooper (1993) described with reference to Martin’s (1992) well-known typology of three cultural perspectives as an “integrationist” view, i.e. the organisational culture as an organisation-wide unified mindset that directs behaviour toward quality and CI. A culture of CI is conceptualised as something an organisation has (as opposed to is), and can be changed purposefully
through management intervention.
The values listed in the above contributions have in common – with the notable exception of Jabnoun (2001) – that they are written from and for a managerial perspective. These values perform directly a function. More specifically, they perform a function for organisational purposes, rather than for the individuals that constitute the organisation. There is “nothing in it” for the common worker.
Put another way, there is little or no hint as to how they should be relevant to an individual or for what motive individuals should deeply internalise these values. Having said this, there is no shortage of advice as to how to “implement” a new culture through management or consultants, from an implementation model (S. Sousa & Aspinwall, 2010) to pointing at the importance of leadership, training, rules, policies, or recognition programmes. What remains is the feeling that the reflection of managerial interest in these values is painfully obvious and that the idea of “quality as organizational truth [that] is the outstanding emotive force which can unify everyone in the organisation” (Lascelles and Dale (1988), as cited in Bright & Cooper, 1993, p.
24) is rather wishful thinking. Later studies attempted increasingly to determine a culture of CI in an empirical way, which leads over to the next section.
2.2.3 Empirical contributions – The quest for an “ideal” cultural profile
While the previous section looked at conceptual contributions trying to define the core
features of an organisational culture of CI, this section considers empirical studies.
Generally these studies seek a profile of an organisational culture that is associated with high performance for initiatives of CI, such as TQM, Lean Production, or Six Sigma. Put another way, organisational culture is conceptualised as one of many factors whose ideal configuration for CI needs to be determined (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Implicit model of culture as one of several factors determining performance There is no shortage of attempts to define the features of a culture of CI empirically. For this purpose the Competing Values Framework (CVF) has been used extensively by scholars in the field OM/QM. It is a model originally developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981) to measure organisational effectiveness and was only later applied to gauge organisational culture. It presumes that there are four basic cultural types (group, developmental, hierarchical and rational culture), which can also be present simultaneously in an organisation (see Figure 5).
Figure 5: Cultural model underlying the CVF (adapted from Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981, p. 136); in brackets variant terms used by more recent publications, e.g. Al-Khalifa and Aspinwall
(2001, p. 420))
Most studies have specifically examined the implications of organisational culture for TQM. Consequently, I will focus on these studies to ensure comparability when discussing the outcomes.
Dellana and Hauser (1999) used the CVF as independent variable and criteria derived from the Malcolm Baldrige award as dependent variable to define a “quality culture”. Based on a sample of 219 US companies they concluded that developmental5
5 They use the term “adhocracy” instead of the more common term “developmental”.
and group culture types tend to be linked to higher Baldrige scores.
Chang and Wiebe (1996) asked a US panel of experts in the field of QM to identify the ideal culture profile for the implementation of TQM. They came to the conclusion that