4.19.- RENFE Operadora

The factors embedded in the response rate gotten from the questionnaire will now be given an in-depth analysis, with the view to drawing a distinct comparism in areas agreement with the implementation of the TQM concept against its effectiveness on elements related to employee productivity enhancement. Total Quality Management (TQM) effectiveness would be measured on the scale of 1-5 in each of the response rate gotten from the questionnaire, where 1 implies very negative and 5 very positive, with regards its impact on employee productivity.

Furthermore, two tables would be used to draw the analysis for each of the factors to be evaluated. The first table gives an overview of the most commonly occurring elements in the respondents’ agreement with the TQM initiative, while the second table illustrates a break- down in the percentage rate of responses of the TQM concept against its effectiveness in each respondent’s agreement level. The full web-questionnaire sent to respondents to fill can be found in Appendix

First Factor: Important elements of TQM in the organisation that has an impact on employees’ productivity? (Question 3 and 4)

Table 10: Employee productivity scores from first factor

Factor Mode Productivity Level

Product Quality 4 (Positively) Continuous Improvement 2 (Negatively)

Employee Involvement 5 (Very Positively) Management Communication 3 (Neutral)

33

Table 11: Break-down of percentage rates of responses of first factor against the employee productivity scores

Very Negatively

Negative Neutral Positive Very Positively Product Quality 34.5% 50% 15.5% Continuous Improvement 18.5% 50% 31.5% - - Employee Involvement - - - - 100% Management Communication - 25% 44% 28% 3% Customer Satisfaction - - 13.5% 50% 36.5%

The results gotten in table 10 indicates that the respondents were in mutual agreement on the fact that TQM has a significantly positive impact on the level of employee involvement in the key decision making process of the organisation, as no one disagreed with this

perspective in the feedback gotten from the questionnaire.

The respondents who had a positive rating for the effect TQM has on two elements of

employee productivity, product quality and customer satisfaction varied in their responses as some felt indifferent (i.e. neutral), while some were of the viewpoint that TQM has a very positive impact on the both factors in their scores. However, as can be seen in the employee responses gotten, no one disagreed with these views in terms of rating TQM as having either a negative or very negative impact on both elements.

As seen in Table 11, respondents with a negative rating to TQM’s effect on the continuous improvement of the organisational process of the firm varied in their feedback, as some contended it had a very negative, while the other group which is larger than the previous one chose to be indifferent (i.e. neutral) in their response. Thus, owing to the fact that the

response rate gotten from both employees and management show that there is an increased percentage of respondents that are in mutual agreement that TQM has either a positive or very positive effect on employee productivity factors as can be seen in the diagram

illustrated, it can be considered that TQM has a positive impact on these factors.

The results gotten from the analysis of respondent’s agreement with TQM’s positive impact on factors of employee productivity correlates with the author’s views such as Lakhal et al. (2006) and Shenawy et al (2007) on the subject matter in the literature review, and implies that TQM has a significant effect on employee productivity owing to the fact that it ensures communication gaps between management and employees are bridged through

34

management’s decision to involve employees are involved in decision making, which leads to customer satisfaction and enhanced quality of products and services rendered, even though some employees felt TQM has a negative impact on the organisation’s quest for continuous improvement.

This factor has the tendency to have a negatively effect on the productivity level of employees who are in disagreement with the fact as they may feel their productivity level does not yield a continuous improvement in terms of consistency in an increase in their level of development and also in the organisational process. However, because substantial amount of employee are in agreement with other factors of productivity as can be seen in table 1, the percentage in measuring TQM’s impact on employee productivity reflects positives as illustrated in table 11.

Second Factor: Has employee involvement enhanced the organisational corporate culture since the introduction of TQM (Question 5 and 6)

Table 12: Employee productivity scores from second factor

Factor Mode Productivity Level

Strongly disagree 3 (Neutral)

Disagree 2 (Negatively)

Neutral 3 (Neutral)

Agree 4 (Positively)

Strongly agree 4 (Positively)

Table 13: Break-down of percentage rates of responses of second factor against the employee productivity scores

Very Negatively

Negative Neutral Positive Very Positively Strongly disagree - 14% 54% 32% - Disagree 13% 58% 29% - - Neutral - 15% 55% 30% - Agree - - - 68% 32% Strongly agree - - - 62% 38%

35

The illustration shown in table 12 depicts the fact that respondents in disagreement with the factor are likely to have their productivity level adversely affected as only as the range of responses gotten in the feedback fall between negative to very negative, even though a substantial amount of respondents felt indifferent in their feedback, as no respondent that disagreed with the fact saw a positive effective in its ability to affect employee productivity.

Respondents who chose to remain neutral on the factor in their responses as can be seen in table 13 have variations in the perception of factor. However majority of the respondents who had neutral associations with the factor saw no changes in the enhancement of the corporate culture of the organisation through employee involvement as a result of

introducing the concept of TQM. Going forward, respondents who were in agreement with the factor took the viewpoint that the corporate culture of the organisation has been

positively affected through employee involvement as no one saw any negative effect in this regard and their agreement level with this factor falls between positive to very positive.

The results gotten from respondents on this factor supports the findings in the Literature Review which give light to the fact that employee involvement leads to the emergence of an increased level of efficiency in service delivery (Behnke et al.(1993), Chiu (1998) and Cotton (1993)), which help them integrate their work structure to form a synergy that has a

significant impact on the outcome of tasks assigned to them, thereby building a corporate culture that carrys employees along in key decision making process of the organisation, Sashkin and Kiser (1993) and Irani et. al (2004).

Thus this factor has both a negative and positive impact on the productivity level of

employees, although unlike tables 1 and 2 discussed earlier, no huge extremes exist in table as the productivity scores range between 2-4.

Third Factor: Has the organisational training program helped enhance the output level of employee? (Question 7 and 8)

36

Table 14: Employee productivity scores from third factor

Factor Mode Productivity Level

Strongly disagree 2 (Negatively)

Disagree 2 (Negatively)

Neutral 3 (Neutral)

Agree 4 (Positively)

Strongly agree 3 (Neutral)

Table 15: Break-down of percentage rates of responses of third factor against the employee productivity scores

Very Negatively

Negative Neutral Positive Very Positively Strongly disagree 7.5% 66% 26.5% - - Disagree 18% 72% - - Neutral - 16% 61% 23% - Agree - 18% 63% 19% Strongly agree - 14% 48% 38% -

Respondents that strongly disagreed and agreed with this factor took the view that it had a negative effect on employee productivity as can be seen in table 14, but table 15 further gives a breakdown to these views held by the respondents which clearly highlights that fact that only a minority of them took a neutral perspective in strongly disagreeing with the fact that the training initiatives of the organisational has an impact on the output of employees.

Furthermore, majority of the subjects who took a neutral stand on the factor as illustrated in table 6 chose to be indifferent in their feedback on the increase in employee output as a result of the training programmes currently being run by the firm, with a minimal difference between those who felt it had a positive impact on the output level of employees and those who took a negative stand.

In addition to this, majority of respondents in agreement with the factor had a positive perspective to its ability to enhance the output of employees, with a minimal difference existing between those who saw a very positive impact and those who chose to have neutral association. However, respondents that were in a strong agreement with that factor had majority of them take a neutral stand, while an almost equal number saw a positive impact

37

and a small percentage of them seeing the training initiatives having a negative effect on employee output levels.

The response rates gotten from tables 14 and 15 correlate with the discussion on the subject matter of training in the Literature Review in that if the employees in the organisation are unaware of how the training models being use translate to increasing their productivity level, or feel the training durations are not adequate enough to lead to ensure they acquire the desired amount of new skills and working techniques needed to enhance their know-how on tasks assigned to them, then this would adversely affect their rate of productivity and hence the reason for disagreement in the ability of the training process’ ability to enhance their corporate work culture. But those who were in agreement that the training initiative positively impacts on their ability to integrate their job descriptions to form a corporate culture

understood the role the factor plays and feel the training timelines are sufficient enough to enable them add value to their level of expertise. Thus it is paramount employees are in a full understanding on the role the training process plays in increasing the corporate culture of the firm and also have a joint agreement on the adequacy of the training duration, as well as its effectiveness so as to lead to an increased level in the cordial work relationship between employees and management, and also enhance employee productivity as indicted by Joseph et al. (1999)

Summarily, this factor has a great tendency to positively impact on the productivity level of employees even though the mode does not go beyond 4 in the score as there is still a significantly large percentage of respondents in agreement with the fact that the training initiatives positively affects their productivity. The thus reveals the need for the organisation to ensure a comprehensive understanding on what the training process entails to all

employees so as not the adversely affect their productivity level.

Fourth Factor: Consistency of meetings to communicate the drive to efficient service delivery (Question 9 and 10)

38

Table 16: Employee productivity scores from fourth factor

Factor Mode Productivity Level

Strongly disagree 2 (Negatively)

Disagree 1 (Vey Negatively)

Neutral 3 (Neutral)

Agree 4 (Positively)

Strongly agree 5 (Very Positively)

Table 17: Break-down of percentage rates of responses of fourth factor against the employee productivity scores

Very Negatively

Negative Neutral Positive Very Positively Strongly disagree 17% 62% 21% - - Disagree 100% - - Neutral - 7% 75% 18% - Agree - - 10% 69% 21% Strongly agree - - - - 100%

Respondents that were in a strong disagreement with this factor has their productivity level negatively affected, while respondents that took a joint disagreement association with the factor saw their productivity level to be very negative as no one saw any positive impact in this regard among as of this two groups as illustrated in table 16.

Respondents who chose to be indifferent about this factor by taking a neutral stand had majority of them choosing to have either a negative or positive relations with this factor by remaining totally indifferent, which a slightly more subject group being on the positive side as opposed to negative in their perspective of this factor’s ability to impact on the productivity level of employees.

However, those in agreement with this factor, as can be seen in table 17 had more positive associations, as well as very positive too with this factor than respondents who chose to be neutral, while respondents who strongly agreed with this factor as can been seen in table 16 and 17 took a very positive viewpoint, with no one identifying an negative impact this factor may have on employee productivity levels.

39

Also as is with previous tables discussed earlier, the findings from the tables above

corroborated with the content of the Literature Review which stressed that a significant level of value is added to the level of employee performance when communication avenues such as face-to-face interactions and scheduled meetings between management and employees are constantly in place Hides et al (2000). Thus employees would felt the level of meetings and communications channels established between them and management was constant enough to critically address crucial elements related to their performance level, saw positive changes in their productivity level, while the implication of not holding meetings as regularly as employees anticipate they should is that it brings about a negative impact on the

productivity level of employees as due to a perceived extended communication gap in the interaction between them and management to address issues related to their productivity.

Summarily, the strength of both the positive and negative effect of this factor on the

productivity level of employees is largely dependent on their level of agreement with regards consistency the established communication channels created by management, as the productivity mode scores at both extremes are in reliance with the respondents’ mutual agreement with this factor and is strengthen by table 8 where the mode productivity scores increases in accordance with agreement with the factor.

Fifth Factor: Management commitment in ensuring sustenance of improved employee productivity (Question 11 and 12)

Table 18: Employee productivity scores from fifth factor

Factor Mode Productivity Level

Strongly disagree 2 (Negatively)

Disagree 2 (Negatively)

Neutral 3 (Neutral)

Agree 4 (Positively)

40

Table 19: Break-down of percentage rates of responses of fifth factor against the employee productivity scores

Very Negatively

Negative Neutral Positive Very Positively Strongly disagree 22% 63% 15% - - Disagree 10% 71% 19% - - Neutral - 11% 75% 14% - Agree - - 12% 65% 23% Strongly agree - - - - 100%

What can be deduced from the feedback analysis given in tables 18 and 19 point to the fact that respondents who both strongly disagreed to the factor, as well as disagreed to it, indicated that their productivity level were negatively affected due to their perceived views that the management is not committed enough to ensuring the sustenance of employee productivity levels are achieved.

Respondents who chose to be neutral to the factor held that their productivity level remained unchanged, however information that can be gotten from the contents in table 19 reflect the fact that a little percentage of the respondents identified a negative impact of the factor to the enhancement of employee productivity, while a percentage slightly higher than that took a positive perspective to the effect the factor has on improving employee productivity.

However, majority of the respondents that were in agreement to the factor as can be seen in the illustrations in tables 18 and 19 stated the factor had a positive impact on the productivity of employees, and while a small percentage felt indifferent about the factor by choosing to be indifferent, a larger percentage identified the factor have a very positive impact on employee productivity. Furthermore, respondents who strongly agreed to the factor as can be seen in table 19, had a very positive perception and have no negative view in their feedback.

The inputs gotten from these two tables are in a significant level of unison with the findings in the Literature Review where Shenawy et al (2007) gave top management commitment and leadership to be among the five key components of TQM that affect the productivity of employees, and as such follow the trends from previous findings where respondents with strong disagreement (and disagreement) to the factor are likely to have their productivity

41

level adversely affected, while those that strong agreement with the factor’s ability to impact on the productivity of employee are likely to have their productivity level positively affected.

Summarily, this factor possesses the strength to impact on the productivity levels of employees in both a very negative and very positive way depending on the commitment level of the top management in ensuring a maximised exploration of avenues to enhance their productivity level to bring about an increase in their rate of performance, as well as a competitive advantage Shenawy et al (2007). The mode productivity score as is with the previous discussed table (i.e. tables 8) are in the respondents agreement with the factor as illustrated in table 10.

In conclusion, all the factors related to employee productivity and TQM have been extensively discussed and analysed, and will be abridged in chapter 5 with details of the research objectives earlier identified in the Literature Review and recommendations.

42