Questioning the asserted IIP benefits and their measurement is a complicated enough conundrum on its own. By going much further into the literature, however, there are some striking and important assumptions that can be uncovered and related to IIP. To do this, it is valuable to start with the implementation of quality improvement tools and techniques in general and question the very fabric of foundation beliefs that are easily assumed and accepted throughout many studies of quality management and HRM. To build on the above discussion of IIP asserted benefits, this section concentrates on the beliefs and assumptions concerning job empowerment, job satisfaction and learning capability in terms of performance quality improvement.
Assumptions concerning job empowerment and job satisfaction are a pertinent place to expand the previous discussion. These aspects are crucial when IIP UK (2008a, 2008b, 2008c) boasts it can increase job satisfaction and considers empowerment to be a crucial facet for improving performance. Malleson (2007) argues, for example, that IIP has increased job satisfaction and empowerment at Pauley Design. Importantly, connections are not that straightforward. Silvestro (2002) suggests American quality management ‗gurus‘ are ‗unanimous & unequivocal‘ in their belief that employee job empowerment and job satisfaction will develop returns in both quality performance improvement and productivity. These ‗gurus‘ inevitably influence the literature. Their assumptions become readily accepted in the context of quality and academia because they are such respected ‗minds‘ within this field. This suggests it is easy to assume there is a connection to quality improvement and productivity, but, importantly, it is challenged and questioned by a number of other authors. Rix (1994), for example, highlights how employees may be suspicious of additional training leading to multi-skilling in the fear it will lead to redundancies. In addition, McArdle et al. (1995) warns of empowerment acting as a mask for work intensification. Thus, the in-depth nature of this research project can explore the assumptions surrounding job empowerment and job satisfaction. Malleson‘s (2007) opinions above are restricted to a management perspective; hence, missing the direct and vital input of front-line employees. This study importantly
includes the perspectives of front-line employees; an approach advocated by Grugulis and Bevitt (2002), who are particularly critical of studies that rely on employer‘s opinions of employees. If positive and/or negative connotations are to be found, the impact on the relevance and sustainability of IIP can be analyzed.
The discussion of assumptions relating to job satisfaction can be taken much further. Robson et al. (2005) and Silvestro (2002) question the acceptance of the assumption that there is a direct relationship between increases in employee satisfaction and increases in productivity and profitability. They do this by suggesting there is a lack of empirical data to support such claims suggested by earlier authors (such as Heskett et
al., 1994), hence, the assumption is unverified. Robson et al. (2005) argue the
assumption had subsequently received widespread acceptance by a number of authors, including as Meyer et al. (1999) and Wirtz (2003). Their study of 21 Further Education (FE) colleges, however, eventually did find evidence to support a link to employee satisfaction and profitability, but at the same time, the results questioned the direct association of job satisfaction to organizational performance improvement and excellence. The study suggested that important additional measures to support employee satisfaction may contribute to improving organizational performance, but without them, the impact is potentially limited. This study is limited by its application into the FE area; therefore, subsequent research has an opportunity to explore this assumption further. Within this research project, insights connecting job satisfaction, IIP recognition and organizational performance can be developed.
The overriding assumptions surrounding quality management may exist to simplify explanations of why performance increases when quality improvement tools and techniques are introduced. This means other potential factors which may exist at the same time – such as economic and market fluxes – could be overlooked as an organization actively seeks to justify the investment of an integrated tool or technique. It is logical to assume that the effect these other factors have could contribute highly, and potentially critically, to performance changes, even with alterations made to job satisfaction levels. If this is the case, it is also logical to assume that the effects of IIP status could be over exaggerated in the face of a magnitude of external influences, which could potentially overstate the contribution of the standard in relation to performance. Questioning and understanding these core assumptions is essential when
exploring the relevance and sustainability of IIP to grasp the full complexities associated with business performance.
IIP UK (2004, 2008a, 2008e) literature provides a compelling case that implies recognition with the standard for any potential organization will ultimately lead to an increase in business performance. The reality, however, can result in no quality improvement and or even a negative impact on performance.Furthermore, although IIP UK does not express it directly, their literature also provides a strong implication that the greater the commitment to the standard‘s ideologies, the greater the reward (e.g. IIP UK, 2008i, 2008j). Yet their literature does not discuss the potential implementation barriers or difficulties. Although IIP UK may not want to advertise it does not, and cannot, have a 100% success rate, it could be misleading without a disclaimer to warn an organization considering the pursuit of IIP of the potential limitations relating to the standard. Therefore, IIP UK should not accept there is always a satisfaction and performance relationship. IIP UK does claim to be striving to engender continuous improvement by constantly updating and revising the standard, but by assuming performance increases with increased satisfaction levels, the standard could possibly be ignoring other crucial areas of the business where improvements could be made.
As the standard is fundamentally linked with the training and development of the workforce only, the link with overall business performance is tentative at best. Berry and Grieves (2003) also suggest IIP is limited to one aspect of Human Resource Development (HRD). This is specifically the career planning approach and, although they suggest the standard can contribute to organizational learning, they argue that learning capability is limited. This is because IIP is not designed as part of an organization-wide planned change programme – a theme considered essential in an organization‘s quest for ‗total quality‘ (e.g. Feigenbaum, 1961; Xu, 1999; Dale et al., 2007), i.e. quality improvements across all areas of an organization simultaneously. To engage with the standard does not require there to be a quality improvement strategy running simultaneously throughout an organization; it simply seeks to improve people through effective training and development. IIP UK achieves this through the assumption that developing employees will lead to a positive impact on performance, but quality performance improvement can be inhibited if the entire organization is not focused towards the same objectives. Focusing on workforce training and development
could be seen as an attempt to find a short and simple (and potentially restricting) route to achieving improved quality. In practice, however, the whole organization needs to be working towards quality improvement objectives to achieve the maximum benefit.
The debate surrounding performance quality improvement is an important one. A number of overriding assumptions have been highlighted and understood. This research project can address these surrounding issues related to job satisfaction, job empowerment and learning capability by analyzing the impact of the standard and its potential relationship with business performance. If these assumptions addressed are found to be overstated, there will be a clear impact on the relevance and sustainability of IIP.
The issues and limitations highlighted within the literature review so far uncover a number of theoretical limitations within the delivery and implementation of IIP. Unsurprisingly, these are not reflected by the standard itself. In the face of what can be viewed as outside criticism, IIP UK (2008b) still maintains that its standard can be used by organizations ‗no matter what the size and type‘. This is potentially misleading if studies conducted have found implementation and compatibility difficulties, whereby the standard has had very little impact, if any. McAdam et al. (2002), for example, found that 29% of the 14 companies studied, who had IIP accreditation for less than a year, felt performance was unchanged. This shows within a relatively small survey of accredited organizations that quality performance improvement is by no means guaranteed when IIP recognition is achieved. IIP UK is unlikely to highlight any implementation and compatibility problems, because that would be detrimental for the brand image and potentially reduce the number of organizations involved in wanting to achieve recognition. Furthermore, a lack of increase in business performance could begin to question motivations behind wanting IIP; whether an organization is trying to achieve greater performance and competitiveness, or simply trying to increase the brand image through the use of the logo. This research project can build upon McAdam et
al.‟s (2002) findings to uncover what impact IIP recognition has upon business