Impact of organizational culture on quality

Benchmarking: An International Journal Impact of organizational culture on quality management practices: an empirical investigation Vishal Singh Patyal, Maddulety Koilakuntla,

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA At 08:19 16 July 2018 (PT)

Article information: To cite this document: Vishal Singh Patyal, Maddulety Koilakuntla, (2018) "Impact of organizational culture on quality management practices: an empirical investigation", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 Issue: 5, pp.1406-1428, https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-12-2016-0191 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-12-2016-0191 Downloaded on: 16 July 2018, At: 08:19 (PT) References: this document contains references to 102 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 78 times since 2018*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2018),"Developing and validating lean manufacturing constructs: an SEM approach", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 Iss 5 pp. 1382-1405 https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2017-0029 (2018),"Influence of bank’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives on consumer attitude and satisfaction in India", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25 Iss 5 pp. 1429-1446 https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2017-0010 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm:492774 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

BIJ 25,5

Impact of organizational culture on quality management practices: an empirical investigation

1406 Received 21 December 2016 Revised 19 April 2017 Accepted 6 May 2017

Vishal Singh Patyal National Institute of Construction Management and Research (NICMAR), Pune, India, and

Maddulety Koilakuntla


National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai, India Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the organizational culture (OC) of the competing values framework (CVF) on quality management (QM) practices. Specifically, it tests OC on two views, QM practices, i.e. the infrastructure quality and core QM practices. Design/methodology/approach – The proposed hypotheses were tested using empirical data drawn from 262 manufacturing organizations in India. The research model developed was analyzed using structural equation modeling technique. Findings – The findings of this study revealed that the hierarchical and rational cultures are the dominant types of culture, and top management commitment and Six Sigma structure are the most important aspects of the infrastructure and core QM practices in Indian manufacturing organizations. Further, the results of the study showed that group culture and development culture are the most supportive culture types for both infrastructure and core QM practices. On the contrary, hierarchical and rational culture types are the least supportive for infrastructure and core QM practices. The study proposes the need for the mixed culture approach that facilitates the adoption of business strategies Practical implications – Before implementing infrastructure and core QM practices, managers must understand the importance of cultural values in their organization to facilitate effective implementation of QM. Originality/value – This paper contributes to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence leading to the relationship between OC and QM practices. This is the first study that empirically examined the Indian cultural context using CVF, thus contributing to the scarce body of literature particularly in the developing countries. Keywords India, TQM, Organizational culture, Structural equation modelling, Manufacturing organizations, Quality practices Paper type Research paper

Benchmarking: An International Journal Vol. 25 No. 5, 2018 pp. 1406-1428 © Emerald Publishing Limited 1463-5771 DOI 10.1108/BIJ-12-2016-0191

1. Introduction In the present scenario, organizations are gradually looking into innovative methods to improve products and processes to enhance customer satisfaction and competitive performance. Organizations need to continuously increase the productivity of manufacturing operations, while being flexible for future environmental fluctuations (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Gorane and Kant, 2016). Numerous studies show that a large number of organizations have adopted quality management (QM) practices to improve the quality and other indicators of performance (Gambi et al., 2015; Patyal and Koilakuntla, 2017; Uluskan, et al., 2016). The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9000, which is a widely used QM system across the globe, addresses numerous aspects of QM. It provides standard operating procedures for organizations to produce the best quality products and services and to meet customer requirements (Basir and Davies, 2018). However, Chiarini (2015) reported that ISO 9001 QMS does not eliminate the cost of poor quality and needs to be integrated with total quality management (TQM) or Six Sigma. TQM and Six Sigma have their own separate identities (Chiarini, 2013).TQM results in


employee motivation and operational efficiency, whereas Six Sigma may lead to organizational success and performance (Yizhong and Liping, 2011).TQM has been described in numerous publications as a management philosophy that aims at continuous improvement in all business functions across the organization and improves business performance(Kaynak, 2003; Maroofi, 2012; Patyal and Koilakuntla, 2016).Six Sigma is an organized and systematic methodology for strategic process improvement and new product and service development (Linderman et al., 2003). Moreover, it helps in reducing costs and achieving financial targets (Chiarini, 2013). Although there are numerous proven benefits of TQM implementation, there are some research studies that describe the patterns of failure in its execution process (Gijo and Rao, 2005; Sila, 2007; Abdolshah and Abdolshah, 2011; Zu, 2009; Maroofi, 2012). The key reasons for these failures are partial deployment and lack of understanding of organizational culture (OC) (Cameron and Quinn, 2005). OC is one of the most important variables in the success or failure of TQM implementation (Dean and Bowen, 1994; De Cock, 1998; Kujala and Lillrank, 2004; Metri, 2005; Powell, 1995). Additionally, Six Sigma also recognizes OC as an important factor for its successful implementation (Kwak andAnbari, 2006; Zu et al., 2010). Moreover, to understand how QM practices affect performance, it is essential to understand the organizational contexts in which these practices are implemented (Maroofi, 2012; Sousa and Voss, 2002). Therefore, OC is seen as one of the important contextual factors that faciliatate the effective implementation of QM practices (Gambi et al., 2015; Sinha et al., 2016). The objective of this study is to empirically determine the links between different types of OC on two dimensions of QM practices, namely, infrastructure and core. The past studies have examined the influence of OC on TQM in the developed countries (Zu et al., 2010; Gimenez-Espin et al., 2013; Haffar et al., 2013a, b; Naor et al., 2008; Gambi et al., 2015; Green, 2012). However, the research testing the impact of OC on QM implementation in the developing countries, specifically in India, is relatively rare. Moreover, there is a very limited research investigating the linkages between OC and infrastructure and core QM practices. The study attempts to answer the following research questions. RQ1. What is the degree of emphasis of Indian manufacturing organizations on each of the four OCs? RQ2. What is the degree of development of Indian manufacturing organizations due to infrastructure and core QM practices? This study adopts the competing values framework (CVF) of OC to capture its value orientations. Further, a research model is developed to determine the causal linkages between OC and QM (infrastructure and core) practices. The model is examined at organizational level. The data were collected from 262 Indian manufacturing organizations, and the model was tested using the structural equation modeling (SEM). The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the literature review and describes hypotheses development. Section 3 discusses the research methodology, and Section 4 presents results and data analysis. Section 5 highlights the findings and discussion followed by research contributions and implications. Finally, the conclusions and possible directions for future research are summarized in Section 6. 2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development 2.1 QM practices The concept of QM construct differs across many studies; some authors refer as “practices” whereas others call it “critical success factors” or “principles,” but the meaning of constructs is same (Sinha et al., 2016). Practices are the observable aspects of quality which helps in achieving organizational objectives through continuous improvement (Sousa and Voss, 2002).

QM practices

1407

BIJ 25,5


1408

QM practices are deployed as a means of creating competencies in organizations (Patyal and Koilakuntla, 2015). QM practices have been classified into two major dimensions, namely, infrastructure QM practices and core QM practices (Flynn et al., 1995; Zu et al., 2010; Patyal and Koilakuntla, 2017). The infrastructure practices accord importance to the behavioral characteristics of QM which are people- and culture-oriented, and are related to organizational change and development in the areas of management commitment and leadership, relationships with external customers and suppliers, and the management of human resources. On the other hand, the core practices accentuate on technical aspects which are technique- and methodology-oriented practices, including the use of quality data and information, product design process, use of statistical process control and other process improvement techniques (Wilkinson, 1992; Naor et al., 2008; Yazdani et al., 2016; Zu et al., 2008, 2010). This study has adopted Patyal and Koilakuntla’s (2017) classification of infrastructure and core QM practices. 2.2 Organizational culture OC is defined as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (Schein, 1992, p. 12). OC may be seen as an element that differs from organization to organization and affects the way in which the organization operates (Denison and Mishra, 1995; McDermott and Stock, 1999). This study adopted the well-known CVF developed by Quinn and his/her associate peers (Quinn and Kimberly, 1984; Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1981, 1983; Quinn and McGrath, 1985) as a tool to evaluate the OC. CVF has been viewed as an important element to measure OC (Shortell et al., 1995). The CVF is built upon two axes: the horizontal axis represents an organizational orientation that divides the organizations into two categories, namely, external and internal operation, and the vertical axis represents the governing structure that shows the organizational tendency of control or flexibility. Based on these two dimensions, four sub-cultures of OC are developed as group, developmental, hierarchal and rational (Denison and Spreitzer, 1991; Cameron and Quinn, 2005). Group culture defines success in terms of sensitivity to people and considers that the organization is an extended family, highlighting it as a friendly place to work with high commitment. Developmental culture defines success in terms of gaining unique products or services and considers that the organization is to be entrepreneurially dynamic and risky place to work with a leading edge. Rational culture defines success in terms of remaining competitive toward market share and penetration, and considers that the organization is meant for results and is goal-focused. Hierarchal culture defines success in terms of dependable delivery, smooth scheduling and low cost, and considers that the organization is a formalized and structured place to work with good efficiency. 2.3 OC and QM practices Culture has been viewed as a vital element in successful implementation of quality improvement programs across organizations (Sinha et al., 2016). Numerous studies examined the impact of OC on QM implementation (Fu et al., 2015; Gimenez-Espin et al., 2013; Sinha et al., 2016; Zu et al., 2011). OC is seen as a differentiating factor that influences the QM practices’ implementation among the organizations (Zu et al., 2011). A large number of organizations are unsuccessful in QM implementation due to the lack of knowledge about cultural dimensions, which underlines the emerging need for studying the role of culture (Prajogo and McDermott, 2005; Patyal and Koilakuntla, 2016). The organization’s values and beliefs help in policy framing, which may affect the implementation of QM practices (Waldman, 1993). For organizations to realize the benefits of QM practices, it is necessary to develop a cultural


environment that supports its implementation (Sousa-Poza et al., 2001; Škerlavaj et al., 2007). Culture is viewed as one of the most influential change agents that helps in QM deployment in an organization (Antony and Banuelas, 2002). Also, for effective implementation of Six Sigma, it is essential to understand the OC (Laureani and Antony, 2016; Zu et al., 2010). 2.4 Hypotheses development 2.4.1 Relationship between OC and Infrastructure QM practices. The flexible OC is positively related with quality improvement program (Shortell et al., 1995). The adoption of quality improvement programs results in a large number of satisfied and loyal customers (Ahire and Dreyfus, 2000; Kaynak, 2003; Patyal and Koilakuntla, 2017). Fulfilling the customer demand every time helps to increase the market share of the organization (Craig and Douglas, 1982; Maroofi, 2012). Further, the quality of an organization’s products and services is influenced by internal and external processes (Flynn et al., 1995; Kaynak, 2003; Prajogo et al., 2016). Suppliers play a vital role in contributing to the buying firm’s produce/service design and process management projects (Kaynak and Hartley, 2008; Gorane and Kant, 2016). Suppliers are the strategic partners that help in building specialized capabilities of the buyer’s organization (Holcomb and Hitt, 2007). Customer relationship and supplier relationship management highlights the need of OC (Naveh and Erez, 2004). The group culture improves the participation of customers and suppliers in organizational activities (Naor et al., 2008). Further, Haffar et al. (2013a, b) state that the group culture is the most conducive culture for the implementation of QM practices. The Six Sigma role structure helps the organization to develop quality problem-solving skills (Zu et al., 2010). The Six Sigma champions provide expert assistance for the improvement of teams and assist the teams in effective decision-making processes (Pande et al., 2002; Zu et al., 2010). The compensation policies include quality-based incentives, compensation based on breadth of skills and incentives for group performance for both TQM and Six Sigma practices (Henderson and Evans, 2000; Raja Sreedharan et al., 2017). These incentives and rewards provided by the management enhance employee motivation and participation in the organization’s continuous improvement activities (Naor et al., 2008). Moreover, incentives are used as an essential element to motivate the workforce for higher performance (Naor et al., 2008). In sync with the CVF theory, the group and development culture represents flexibility and spontaneity orientation. Since the core practices represent the hard practices, the authors propose that flexible and spontaneity orientations have a more significant impact on infrastructure practices as compared to stability/control-oriented organizations. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1. Group culture has a more significant impact on infrastructure practices as compared to stability/control-oriented organizations. H1a. Group culture has a more significant impact on infrastructure practices as compared to hierarchical culture-oriented organizations. H1b. Group culture has a more significant impact on infrastructure practices as compared to rational culture-oriented organizations. H2. Developmental culture has a more significant impact on infrastructure practices as compared to stability/control-oriented organizations. H2a. Developmental culture has a more significant impact on infrastructure practices as compared to hierarchical culture-oriented organizations. H2b. Developmental culture has a more significant impact on infrastructure practices as compared to rational culture-oriented organizations.

QM practices

1409

BIJ 25,5


1410

2.4.2 Relationship between OC and core QM practices. A large number of studies revealed that the cultural attributes are linked with core quality improvement practices which assist in developing suitable actions for continuous improvement in products, services and processes (Forza and Filippini, 1998; Hackman and Wageman, 1995; Kaynak, 2003; Rahman and Bullock, 2005; Patyal and Koilakuntla, 2017). Further, the Six Sigma methodology also favors continuous improvement activities through the Six Sigma structured improvement procedure and Six Sigma metrics approach (Zu et al., 2010; Shafer and Moeller, 2012). The implementation of TQM practices like quality information, product/service design, and process management complements the rational culture (Zammuto and O’Connor, 1992). Rational culture facilitates process management by linking each activity to the similar end point (Linderman et al., 2003). Further, group culture facilitates an organizational member’s participation through teamwork, empowerment and open communication which streamline the decision-making process (Naor et al., 2008; Zu et al., 2010). The hierarchical culture promotes standardization of products and services to facilitate the effective implementation of QM (Gimenez-Espin et al., 2013). The low hierarchy facilitates new product development through the contribution of different ideas and efforts from persons (Nakata and Sivakumar, 1996). A hierarchical culture follows the process management techniques like efficiency, stability and error detection and measurement that help in improving the internal processes through preventive maintenance and statistical process control techniques (Maroofi, 2012). The hierarchical and rational culture represents stability and control orientation in the CVF framework. Also, since the infrastructure practices represent the soft practices, this study proposes that the organizations with control orientations have a more significant impact on core practices as compared to the flexibility-oriented organizations. Overall, the above discussion suggests the following hypotheses: H3. Hierarchical culture has a more significant impact on core practices as compared to the flexibility-oriented organizations. H3a. Hierarchical culture has a more significant impact on core practices as compared to the group culture-oriented organizations. H3b. Hierarchical culture has a more significant impact on core practices as compared to the developmental culture-oriented organizations. H4. Rational culture has a more significant impact on core practices as compared to the flexibility-oriented organizations. H4a. Rational culture has a more significant impact on core practices as compared to the group culture-oriented organizations. H4b. Rational culture has a more significant impact on core practices as compared to the developmental culture-oriented organizations. The theoretical discussions and proposed hypothesized relationships have led to the development of the proposed model, for explaining the relationship among OC types, and infrastructure and core QM practices implementation, as shown in Figure 1. 3. Research methodology 3.1 Sampling and data collection A cross-sectional questionnaire survey method was used to collect data for this study. The survey items were grouped into sets, and each set was labeled to help the respondent for easily understanding the content of the survey. The sample of participant organizations

QM practices Organizational Culture

Top Management Commitment

Customer Relationship Management

Supplier Relationship Management

Workforce Management

Six Sigma Role

Group Culture

Core QM Practices

Hierarchical Culture


1411

Infrastructure QM Practices

Development Culture

Rational Culture Quality Information and Analysis

Process Management

Product/ Service Design

Six Sigma Metrics

Six Sigma Structural Procedure

was drawn through a combination of purposive and snowball sampling technique. The purposive sampling technique is used “when the researcher decides what needs to be known and sets out to find people who can and are willing to provide information by virtue of knowledge or experience” (Lewis and Sheppard, 2006). Snowball sampling, which involves asking an informant to suggest another informant, follows purposive sampling (Patyal and Koilakuntla, 2017). The target respondents were plant managers, quality heads and Six Sigma Master Black Belts and Black Belts. A total of 500 respondents from the Indian manufacturing organizations were approached through e-mail and personal visits for data collection. These respondents were requested to complete the designed questionnaire. Out of these 500 respondents approached, 284 respondents agreed and responded, yielding a response rate of 56.8 percent. Out of 284, 22 responses were incomplete. Hence, the data collected from 262 manufacturing organizations were used for the analysis. The detailed profile of the respondents is shown in Figure 2. 3.2 Measures of OC and QM practices The OC is measured using the instrument originally established by Quinn and Spreitzer (1991). The measures for OC types were taken from the empirical studies which have tested OC in the QM context (Naor et al., 2008; Zu et al., 2010) (see Tables AI and AII). The study utilized both TQM and Six Sigma practices while considering infrastructure and core QM practices. The five infrastructure QM practices, namely, “top management support,” “workforce management,” “customer relationship,” “supplier relationship” and “Six Sigma role” are measured using an instrument (Zu et al., 2010). Correspondingly, the five practices are utilized to assess core QM practices, namely, “quality information and analysis,” “process control,” and “product design,” “Six Sigma structure,” “Six Sigma metric” (Zu et al., 2010). Recently, Patyal and Koilakuntla (2017) tested these scales in the Indian manufacturing organizations’ context. This study adopted the validated scale from Patyal and Koilakuntla (2017) for the assessment of QM practices (see Tables AI and AII). The measurement items are measured through perceptual questions on a seven-point Likert scale with the end points of “strongly disagree ( ¼ 1)” and “strongly agree ( ¼ 7).”

Figure 1. Proposed model

BIJ 25,5

1412

Industry Category Employee Size

9

Others Chemical

10

FMCG

12

More than 15 years

Electrical equipment’s, appliances, co...

25 Between 5 and 10 years

30

Aerospace Heavy Engineering


Between 11 and 15 years

18

Pharmaceutical

40 Less than 5 years

Automobile/Auto Ancillary

118 0

20

Turnover

Figure 2. Profile of respondents

More than 15 years





Less than 5 years

Less than 5 years 20

40

60

80

60

80

100

120

100

120

Experience

More than 15 years

0

40

100 120

0

20

40

60

80

4. Results and data analysis 4.1 Tests for reliability and validity analysis This study used Cronbach’s α for measuring the reliability of the instrument. The threshold value of Cronbach’s α should be at least 0.60 and is considered highly reliable beyond 0.70 (Nunnally et al., 1994). The reliability test was performed on QM practices and OC types; all 14 factors’ α value exceeded the threshold limit by a substantial margin, indicating a good reliability of the measurement scales (see Table III). A systematic review of literature was conducted to ensure content validity. Further, the study calculated both the convergent and the discriminant validity. For convergent validity, the composite reliability of all the measures must be above 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010). The QM practices and OC types are above the minimum threshold limits (see Table I). Further, the average variance extracted (AVE) should be above 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010). All the factors of QM practices, OC, the value of AVE, are 0.50 above the minimum threshold value (see Table I). The discriminant validity can be examined by comparing the shared variance between measures with the AVEs of the individual measures (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Additionally, the maximum shared variance (MSV) should be less than AVE, i.e. (MSVoAVE) and average shared variance (ASV) less than AVE, i.e. ASVoAVE (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The comparison between the AVEs and shared variance of QM practices, and OC is presented in Table I. Also, the square root of AVE must be greater than the inter-construct correlations (see Table II). The results showed that the shared variance between the measures was less than the AVEs of the individual measures of QM practices, and OC, which, in turn, confirms good construct validity.

Mean

SD

Cronbach’s α

CR

AVE

MSV

ASV

Infrastructure QM practices 1 Top management commitment 2 Supplier relationship management 3 Customer relationship management 4 Workforce management 5 Six Sigma role Structure

6.11 5.76 5.90 5.88 5.67

0.90 1.17 0.98 1.03 0.85

0.87 0.91 0.83 0.83 0.77

0.855 0.855 0.855 0.840 0.786

0.603 0.612 0.612 0.576 0.510

0.429 0.419 0.419 0.065 0.247

0.214 0.135 0.135 0.021 0.093

Core QM practices 6 Process management 7 Product/service design 8 Six Sigma structure 9 Six Sigma metric 10 Quality information and analysis

5.57 5.87 5.41 5.61 5.74

0.89 0.80 1.08 0.89 1.06

0.83 0.84 0.87 0.93 0.87

0.860 0.819 0.887 0.940 0.869

0.565 0.535 0.668 0.616 0.634

0.007 0.415 0.338 0.194 0.429

0.002 0.205 0.179 0.073 0.188

Organization culture 11 Group culture 12 Development culture 13 Rational culture 14 Hierarchal culture

5.91 5.92 6.05 5.33

1.06 0.91 0.66 1.32

0.95 0.90 0.84 0.92

0.956 0.916 0.845 0.903

0.844 0.742 0.586 0.704

0.295 0.338 0.027 0.303

0.157 0.173 0.008 0.110


Sr. No

Constructs

4.2 Test for structural model The hypotheses have been tested by using the SEM technique and using the maximum likelihood method (Hair et al., 2010; Maruyama, 1997). The testing confirms a model’s goodness of fit (GOF) and the hypothesized paths between constructs. First, the loading estimates were examined to make sure that they have not changed substantially from the measurement model indicating parameter stability among the measured items, which further supports the measurement model validity (Hair et al., 2010). The structural model is found to fit the data well, as supported by the GOF indices: normed χ2 ( χ2/df ¼ 2.37) is also below the cut-off value of 5 (Hair et al., 2010), RMSEA ¼ 0.072, SRMR ¼ 0.98, CFI ¼ 0.87, TLI ¼ 0.86, IFI ¼ 0.87). Even RMSEA, SRMR are below the cut-off value of 0.10 (Hair et al., 2010). The GOF indices indicates high parameter stability among the measured items in the model. Overall, the model demonstrates a good model fit to the real-world data. The results showed that group culture ( β ¼ 0.36) has a more significant impact, and so does development culture ( β ¼ 0.37) on infrastructure practices as compared to hierarchical culture ( β ¼ 0.23) and rational culture ( β ¼ 0.10), thus accepting H1 and H2. However, the hierarchical culture has a less significant ( β ¼ 0.32) impact on the core practices as compared to the group culture ( β ¼ 0.54) and development culture ( β ¼ 0.32), thus rejecting H3. Rational culture’s impact on the core practices is non-significant thus automatically rejecting H4. The variance explained by structural relationships was 75percent for the core QM practices, and 53percent for infrastructure QM practices. These values indicate a high predictive power of the model. The standardized parameter estimates, t- and p-values, and GOF indices for the proposed model are reported in Table III. 5. Findings and discussion OC is a unique intangible element that can distinguish the organizations from its competitors and also help them to be competitive (Barney, 1986). The manufacturing organizations across the globe necessitate the incorporation of culture types in operations management studies due to the globalization and outsourcing (Zhao et al., 2006). The discussion on research questions and hypotheses is presented in the following sections.

QM practices

1413

Table I. Scale measurement properties

Table II. Discriminant validity assessment CRM

SRM

WM

SSR

QIA

PSD

PM

SSS

0.752 0.378 0.788 0.625 0.41 0.786 0.548 0.237 0.569 0.732 0.15 0.078 0.195 0.174 0.681 0.609 0.441 0.576 0.526 0.163 0.782 0.6 0.21 0.565 0.429 0.151 0.591 0.803 0.266 0.337 0.28 0.39 0.07 0.348 0.077 0.82 0.094 0.004 0.117 −0.10 −0.016 −0.06 0.076 0.027 0.747 0.468 0.327 0.455 0.405 0.106 0.448 0.523 0.297 −0.043 0.875 0.426 0.21 0.595 0.519 0.216 0.475 0.7 0.214 0.045 0.57 0.566 0.084 0.399 0.641 0.098 0.477 0.527 0.193 0.008 0.473 0.092 −0.027 0.087 0.208 −0.015 0.096 0.147 0.027 −0.02 0.111 0.531 0.471 0.543 0.489 0.135 0.566 0.45 0.407 0.017 0.505 represented by diagonal values and shared variance is represented by all other entries

TMC

0.706 0.529 0.12 0.363

SSM

0.784 0.107 0.244

DC

1414

Group culture (GC)’ Top management commitment (TMC) Customer relationship management (CRM) Supplier relationship management (SRM) Workforce management (WM) Six Sigma role structure (SSR) Quality information and analysis (QIA) Product/service design(PSD) Process management (PM) Six Sigma structure (SSS) Six Sigma metric (SSM) Development culture (DC) Rational culture (RC) Hierarchal culture (HC) Note: Average extracted variance (AVE) is

GC


0.764 0.1

RC

0.831

HC

BIJ 25,5

Unstandardized Standardized estimates estimate

SE

QM practices p

Group culture → infrastructure QM practices 0.184 0.358 0.035 5.184 *** Development culture → infrastructure QM practices 0.232 0.37 0.053 4.401 *** Hierarchical culture → infrastructure QM practices 0.189 0.233 0.061 3.106 0.002 Rational culture → infrastructure QM practices 0.102 0.1 0.058 1.756 0.079* Group culture → core QM practices 0.192 0.543 0.034 5.579 *** Development culture → core QM practices 0.136 0.315 0.038 3.579 *** Hierarchical culture → core QM practices 0.181 0.324 0.047 3.827 *** Rational culture → core QM practices 0.024 0.034 0.037 0.633 0.527 Notes: Cut-off t-value is 1.96. Model fit Statistics; ( χ2/df ) ¼ 2.37, RMSEA ¼ 0.072, SRMR ¼ 0.098, CFI ¼ 0.88, TLI ¼ 0.86, IFI ¼ 0.87; square multiple correlations (also known as R2); Infrastructure QM practices ¼ 0.53, core QM practices ¼ 0.75; *Indicates all p-values are significant at po 0.10; ***indicates all p-values are highly significant p o0.00

1415

Table III. Key parameters of structural model

5.1 Answers to research questions RQ1. What is the emphasis degree of Indian manufacturing organization on each of the four OC types? To identify the OC of Indian manufacturing organization (RQ1), the standardized factor loadings of OC have been used to plot the cultural profile (see Figure 3).The number of points on a specific culture determines its strength; the higher score represents the dominant particular culture (Cameron and Quinn, 2005; Valmohammadi and Roshanzamir, 2015). The maximum factor loading on hierarchical culture shows that OC is best explained by this dimension. The results showed the hierarchical and rational cultures as the dominant types of OC. Hierarchical culture (0.61) and rational culture (0.56) had the highest values (see Figure 3). Flexibility and Spontaneity

Development

1.0 0.8 0.6

0.49

0.37 0.4 0.2 0

0.56

0.61

Rational

Hierarchical

Stability and Control

External Focus and Competitiveness

Group

Internal Focus and Integration


Relationships

CR (t-value)

Figure 3. Organizational culture profile of Indian manufacturing organization

BIJ 25,5

The Indian manufacturing organizations stress on stability and control, more than flexibility or spontaneity. The organizations must determine their cultural strength to be successful in this competitive environment (Valmohammadi and Roshanzamir, 2015): RQ2. What is the degree of development of Indian manufacturing organizations on each infrastructure QM practices and core QM practices?


1416

The standardized factor loadings of the five first-order infrastructure and core QM practices respectively helped us to investigate the development degree of the Indian manufacturing organization on each of these QM practices (see Figures 4 and 5). In the case of infrastructure QM practices, the maximum factor loading on “top management commitment” was (0.80) while the minimum factor loading on “Six Sigma role” was (0.37). Similarly, core QM practices emphasized “Six Sigma structure” (0.74) more, while the minimum factor loading on “Process management” was (0.06). The results showed the top management commitment and Six Sigma structure as the most developed aspects of infrastructure QM and core QM practices, respectively, in the Indian manufacturing organization. 5.2 Test of research hypotheses The well-known CVF was used to evaluate an organization’s culture. This framework comprises four cultural orientations, which are group culture, developmental culture, hierarchical culture and rational culture. This study tested the relevance of these cultural types and validated them in the Indian context. The results of this study are in agreement with the prior studies (Ambroz, 2004; Buch and Rivers, 2001; Chu, 2003; Irani et al., 2004; Naor et al., 2008, 2013; Zu et al., 2010) regarding the importance of OC to QM. Also, this study calculated the impact of these four culture orientations on infrastructure quality practices and core quality practices: H1. Group culture has a more significant impact on infrastructure QM practices as compared to stability/control-oriented organizations. Infrastructure QM Practices Six Sigma Role

0.37

Customer Relationship Management

Figure 4. Development degree of infrastructure QM practices in Indian manufacturing organization

0.75

Supplier Relationship Management

0.72


0.43

Top Management Commitment

0.8 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Core QM Practices Six Sigma Metric

0.44 0.74

Six Sigma Structure

Figure 5. Development degree of core QM practices in Indian manufacturing organization

Quality Information and Analysis

0.7

Process Management

0.06

Product/Service Design

0.59 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8


In this study, the proposed model revealed that the group culture is more significantly related to the infrastructure QM practices as compared to the stability/control-oriented organizations (support for H1). More precisely, group culture has shown more significant impact on infrastructure QM practices as compared to the hierarchical and rational cultures (support for H1a and H1b). This result confirms the prominence of the group culture for QM (Prajogo and McDermott, 2005; Naor et al., 2008; Zu et al., 2010). The group culture includes trust, loyalty, attachment and human resources as core values (Zu, 2005). It also facilitates the effective deployment of infrastructure QM practices comprises customer relationship, supplier relationship and workforce management, as these practices emphasize creating internal and external cooperation for continuous improvement (Anderson et al., 1994). Employees in organizations that accentuate the group culture possibly work together with external customers and suppliers, as they draw from the mutual bond of trust in a relationship. For building a solid link with customers and suppliers, it is essential for organizations to involve them in product design or process improvement activities and share information with them, which, in turn, improves quality (Zu, 2005). Also, the group culture must support workforce management through encouraging communication, learning and activities (Cameron and Quinn, 2005). Organizations that give importance to human resources usually emphasize policies that are constructive for developing a competent workforce and employees’ loyalty and commitment to the organization (Zeitz et al., 1997; Zu, 2005). This finding supports prior studies (Zeitz et al., 1997; Klein et al., 1995; Chu, 2003; Naor et al., 2008).These studies have concluded that the cultural characteristics supporting QM implementation result in employee empowerment, human resources and open communication: H2. Developmental culture has a more significant impact on infrastructure QM practices as compared to stability/control-oriented organizations. These results show that the developmental culture is more significantly related to the infrastructure QM practices as compared to the stability/control-oriented organizations (support for H2), which means the developmental culture has a more significant impact on infrastructure QM practices as compared to the hierarchical and rational culture (support for H2a and H2b). These results corroborate with the findings of Page and Curry (2000). For the effective implementation of TQM, an OC that encourages customer focus is desirable (Lakhe and Mohanty, 1994). This has been further proved by several other studies (Bou-Llusar et al., 2009; Kumar and Sankaran, 2007; Prajogo and McDermott, 2005; Naor et al., 2008; Yeo and Neal, 2004; Zu et al., 2010; Gimenez-Espin et al., 2013). Developmental culture demonstrates the tolerance for flexibility (Cameron and Quinn, 2005). Also, this culture supports the approach of Six Sigma that provides training and assigns different roles and responsibilities (Linderman et al., 2003; Zu et al., 2010): H3. Hierarchical culture has a more significant impact on core QM practices as compared to flexibility-oriented organizations. Correspondingly, this study shows less significant impact of the hierarchal culture upon the core QM practices as compared to the flexibility-oriented organizations (rejection for H3). Also, the hierarchical culture has a less significant impact on core practices as compared to the group and development culture-oriented organizations (rejection for H3a and H3b). These findings are in line with Douglas and Judge (2001), who reported that a strong focus on structural control of procedures, operations and work activities helped in improving the organization’s effectiveness and efficiency. The values and beliefs associated with the hierarchical culture are consistent and reliable with the supervisory control of the organization, using a clear line of structure and communication (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1991). However, the past studies mentioned about the lack of significance of the hierarchical

QM practices

1417

BIJ 25,5


1418

culture for organizational effectiveness (Zu et al., 2010). Agus and Sagir (2001) reported that there were no significant links of hierarchical management with process management. The organizations that stressed the hierarchical culture were the worst performers and their employees reported a low quality of work life (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1991; Yeung et al., 1991). Remarkably, the results of this study showed that a large number of organizations in India were characterized by hierarchical characteristics. Kumar and Sankaran (2007) argued that there need not be a conflicting impact of hierarchy and collectivism on TQM implementation. Further, these authors mentioned that in the Indian context, hierarchy operationalized through the teacher-student relationship between the boss and the subordinate can develop a learning orientation among the organizational members and facilitate TQM implementation. It appears that organizations with an emphasis on the hierarchical culture are more likely to comply with rigorous problem-solving procedures of Six Sigma and to install a Six Sigma role structure to formalize employees’ roles and responsibilities in continuous improvement. Further, the findings recommend that for achieving a premier position in quality levels, organizations must use tools such as Pareto chart, fish bone diagram, affinity chart, and variance plots for improving measurement, process control and systematic problem solving (Cameron and Quinn, 2005): H4. Rational culture has a more significant impact on core QM practices as compared to flexibility-oriented organizations. The results of this study suggest that there is no significant impact of the rational culture on the core QM practices as compared to the flexibility-oriented organizations (rejection for H4). In totality, the rational culture has no significant effect on the core QM practices as compared to the group and development cultures (rejection for H4a and H4b). The infrastructure practices require people- and culture-oriented practices that aim at satisfying customer needs and expectations, improving product and service quality, and enhancing the operational performance (Wilkinson, 1992; Zu et al., 2008). The rational culture stresses on achieving productivity, efficiency and performance, encouraging employees to follow the organizational goals of superior quality using the infrastructure quality practices. Also, employees tend to have less resistance to committing to challenging quality goals and are ready to utilize quality tools and metrics in the routine work. Moreover, for attaining world-class quality, the application of rational culture is desirable (Cameron and Quinn, 2005). The final structural model has been shown in Figure 6. 6. Research contributions and implications The research contributes significantly to the body of knowledge of QM literature in a number of ways. First, this study improved the understanding of the impact of OC on QM. Past studies highlighted the significant impact of OC on the effectiveness of QM programs (Lewis, 1996). Though past studies (Zeitz et al., 1997; Corbett and Cutler, 2000; Kujala and Lillrank, 2004) repeatedly emphasize the magnitude of cultural characteristics that are related to communication, trust and employee participation in QM, the studies ignored the potential effect of culture on the application of the quality methods and tools, which are essential components of QM. This study examined the impact of individual cultural orientations on the two dimensions of QM practices. Second, the SEM used in this study provided a perfect means to analyze the model fit indices. This contribution is essential as the investigation of OC and QM practices helps in advancing the current knowledge concerning the interrelationships between these factors. This study has some key managerial implications. Before implementing infrastructure and core QM practices, managers must understand the cultural values emphasized in their organization to facilitate the effective implementation of QM practices. The group and development cultures appear to be strongly affecting infrastructure and core QM practices;

0.63 G1 0.76

e1

0.8

e52

G3

0.87 0.7

e51

0.57 G4

e58 e57

0.64

Group Culture


e65 e64 e63 e62 e61 e60 e70 e69 e68 e67 e66

0.3

6

G5 0.68 D1 0.73 0. 82 D2 0.8 5 0.45 0.67 D3 0.74 0.86 D4 2 0.7 0.52 D5 0.42 H1 0.6 0.67 5 H2 0.8 2 0.86 0.93 H3 0.72 0.52

H4 0.43 H5 0.36

0.14

0.57

Supplier_Rel Management

Customer_Rel Management

Six_Sigma Role

5 0.6 0 0.6

H6 0.50 R2 0.7 1 0.34 0.58 R3 0.53 0.73 R4 6 0.8 0.74 9 0.6 R5 0.48 R6

0.43

0.80

0.72

0.75

0.37

1419

0.53 Infrastructure Practices

0.37 Development Culture

e71

54

e55


Top_Management Commitment

0.

e56

QM practices

e5

0.52

0.18

0. 88

5

0.78 e50 e59

e4

e3

e2

0

3

0.2

0.32

Hierarchical Culture

0. 10

e53

0.75 0.32

Core Practices

3

0.0

Rational Culture

0.59

0.06

0.44

0.75

0.70 0.49

0.00

0.35

e49

0.56

0.19

Product_Service Design

Process Management

Quality_Information Analysis

Six_Sigma Structure

Six_Sigma Metrics

e10

e9

e8

e7

e6

therefore, managers need to be competent in managing teams, interpersonal relationships and look for innovation and new resources. Further, managers should favor teamwork and help individuals improve their performance, expand their competencies and get rewarded for their contribution to better quality. Therefore, managers must transform their existing culture and move their emphasis toward the values and characteristics of the group and development culture. Also, managers must build a competitive advantage through culture-driven organizational capability based on the characteristics of multiple culture types; they will make it more difficult for competitors to replicate processes and routines. Further, organizations must innovate and frame policies for a perfect work-life balance which makes employees happy and satisfied. Organizations should emphasize supportive OC; this will not only enhance the quality of work life of employees but also help in the increased organizational commitment, job involvement, empowerment, job satisfaction and enhanced productivity level of the organization. 7. Conclusion In a nutshell, the findings of this study are very useful for taking positive steps for improving the quality of products thereby maintaining the healthy industrial growth. The findings of this study revealed the hierarchical and rational cultures as the dominant types of culture and top management commitment and Six Sigma structure as the most important aspects of infrastructure and core QM practices, respectively, in the Indian manufacturing organizations. Also, the study revealed that the group culture and development culture are the most supportive cultures for both infrastructure and core QM practices. On the contrary, hierarchical and rational cultures are the least supportive for infrastructure and core QM practices. The study proposes the need for building a comprehensive culture environment, i.e. the mixed culture approach, that facilitates the adoption of business strategies.

Figure 6. Structural model

BIJ 25,5


1420

7.1 Limitations and future scope There are some limitations of this research that lead to ways for future research. First, the study is limited to the organizations of a developing country but owing to the cultural dissimilarities, the results of the study may differ in case of other developing countries. Second, the results of the study are limited to manufacturing organizations, predominantly focusing on the automobile sector. However, further research should be carried out on other sectors. Third, the instrument used to measure OC assumes that there is a single culture throughout the organization. However, different departments in the same organization usually maintain an internal culture distinct from the rest of the organization. Fourth, this study used a cross-sectional design for data collection. This study has considered only QM practices; however, the future studies may include supply chain management, lean, Kaizen and sustainability dimension in the measurement model to get more concrete results. Further research is needed to examine the effect of the national culture on QM implementation and the resulting effect on organizational performance. References Abdolshah, M. and Abdolshah, S. (2011), “Barriers to the successful implementation of TQM in Iranian manufacturing organisations”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 358-373. Agus, A. and Sagir, R.M. (2001), “The structural relationships between total quality management, competitive advantage and bottom line financial performance: an empirical study of Malaysian manufacturing companies”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 Nos 7/8, pp. 1018-1024. Ahire, S.L. and Dreyfus, P. (2000), “The impact of design management and process management on quality: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 549-575. Ambroz, M. (2004), “Total quality system as a product of the empowered corporate culture”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 93-104. Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M. and Schroeder, R.G. (1994), “A theory of quality management underlying the deming management method”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 472-509. Antony, J. and Banuelas, R. (2002), “Key ingredients for the effective implementation of Six Sigma program”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 20-27. Barney, J.B. (1986), “Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 656-665. Basir, S.A. and Davies, J. (2018), “ISO 9000 maintenance measures: the case of a Malaysian local authority”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 29 Nos 1/2, pp. 185-201. Bou-Llusar, J.C., Escrig-Tena, A.B., Roca-Puig, V. and Beltrán-Martín, I. (2009), “An empirical assessment of the EFQM excellence model: evaluation as a TQM framework relative to the MBNQA model”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-22. Buch, K. and Rivers, D. (2001), “TQM: the role of leadership and culture”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 365-371. Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2005), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Chiarini, A. (2013), “Relationships between total quality management and Six Sigma inside European manufacturing companies: a dedicated survey”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 179-194. Chiarini, A. (2015), “Effect of ISO 9001 non-conformity process on cost of poor quality in capital-intensive sectors”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 144-155.

Chu, K. (2003), “An organizational culture and the empowerment for change in SMEs in the Hong Kong manufacturing industry”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 139 No. 1, pp. 505-509.

QM practices

Corbett, L.M. and Cutler, D.J. (2000), “Environmental management systems in the New Zealand plastics industry”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 204-224. Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (1982), “Strategic factors associated with market and financial performance”, Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 101-112. De Cock, C. (1998), “‘It seems to fill my head with ideas’: a few thoughts on postmodernism, TQM, and BPR”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 144-153.


Dean, J.W. and Bowen, D.E. (1994), “Management theory and total quality: improving research and practice through theory development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 392-418. Denison, D.R. and Mishra, A.K. (1995), “Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness”, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 204-223. Denison, D.R. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1991), “Organizational culture and organizational development: a competing values approach”, Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-21. Douglas, T.J. and Judge, W.Q. (2001), “Total quality management implementation and competitive advantage: the role of structural control and exploration”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 158-169. Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1995), “The impact of quality management practices on performance and competitive advantage”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 659-691. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50. Forza, C. and Filippini, R. (1998), “TQM impact on quality conformance and customer satisfaction: a causal model”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 1-20. Fu, S.L., Chou, S.Y., Chen, C.K. and Wang, C.W. (2015), “Assessment and cultivation of total quality management organisational culture – an empirical investigation”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 26 Nos 1/2, pp. 123-139. Gambi, L.D.N., Boer, H., Gerolamo, M.C., Jørgensen, F. and Carpinetti, L.C.R. (2015), “The relationship between organizational culture and quality techniques, and its impact on operational performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 1460-1484. Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004), “The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 209-226. Gijo, E. and Rao, T.S. (2005), “Six Sigma implementation – hurdles and more hurdles”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 721-725. Gimenez-Espin, J.A., Jiménez-Jiménez, D. and Martínez-Costa, M. (2013), “Organizational culture for total quality management”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6, pp. 678-692. Gorane, S.J. and Kant, R. (2016), “Supply chain practices: an implementation status in Indian manufacturing organisations”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 1076-1110. Green, T.J. (2012), “TQM and organisational culture: how do they link?”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 141-157. Hackman, J.R. and Wageman, R. (1995), “Total quality management: empirical, conceptual, and practical issues”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 309-342. Haffar, M., Al-Karaghouli, W. and Ghoneim, A. (2013a), “The mediating effect of individual readiness for change in the relationship between organisational culture and TQM implementation”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6, pp. 693-706.

1421

BIJ 25,5

Haffar, M., Al-Karaghouli, W. and Ghoneim, A. (2013b), “An analysis of the influence of organisational culture on TQM implementation in an era of global marketing: the case of Syrian manufacturing organisations”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 96-115. Hair, J.F., Tatham, R.L., Anderson, R.E. and Black, W. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

1422

Henderson, K.M. and Evans, J.R. (2000), “Successful implementation of Six Sigma: benchmarking general electric company”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 260-282. Holcomb, T.R. and Hitt, M.A. (2007), “Toward a model of strategic outsourcing”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 464-481.


Irani, Z., Beskese, A. and Love, P. (2004), “Total quality management and corporate culture: constructs of organisational excellence”, Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 643-650. Kaynak, H. (2003), “The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 405-435. Kaynak, H. and Hartley, J.L. (2008), “A replication and extension of quality management into the supply chain”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 468-489. Klein, A.S., Masi, R.J. and Weidner, C.K. (1995), “Organization culture, distribution and amount of control, and perceptions of quality an empirical study of linkages”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 122-148. Kujala, J. and Lillrank, P. (2004), “Total quality management as a cultural phenomenon”, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 43-55. Kumar, M.R. and Sankaran, S. (2007), “Indian culture and the culture for TQM: a comparison”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 176-188. Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F.T. (2006), “Benefits, obstacles, and future of Six Sigma approach”, Technovation, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 708-715. Lakhe, R. and Mohanty, R. (1994), “Total quality management: concepts, evolution and acceptability in developing economies”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 9, pp. 9-33. Laureani, A. and Antony, J. (2016), “Leadership – a critical success factor for the effective implementation of Lean Six Sigma”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 29 Nos 5/6, pp. 502-523. Lewis, D. (1996), “The organizational culture saga - from OD to TQM: a critical review of the literature. Part 2 - applications”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 9-16. Lewis, J.L. and Sheppard, S.R. (2006), “Culture and communication: can landscape visualization improve forest management consultation with indigenous communities?”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 291-313. Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S. and Choo, A.S. (2003), “Six Sigma: a goal-theoretic perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 193-203. McDermott, C.M. and Stock, G.N. (1999), “Organizational culture and advanced manufacturing technology implementation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 521-533. Maroofi, F. (2012), “Link between organisational culture and TQM practices”, International Journal of Intelligent Enterprise, Vol. 1 Nos 3/4, pp. 327-346. Maruyama, G.M. (1997), Basics of Structural Equation Modeling, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Metri, B.A. (2005), “TQM critical success factors for construction firms”, Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 61-72. Nakata, C. and Sivakumar, K. (1996), “National culture and new product development: an integrative review”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 61-72.

Naor, M., Goldstein, S.M., Linderman, K.W. and Schroeder, R.G. (2008), “The role of culture as driver of quality management and performance: infrastructure versus core quality practices”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 671-702.

QM practices

Naor, M., Jones, J.S., Bernardes, E.S., Goldstein, S.M. and Schroeder, R. (2013), “The cultureeffectiveness link in a manufacturing context: a resource-based perspective”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 321-331. Naveh, E. and Erez, M. (2004), “Innovation and attention to detail in the quality improvement paradigm”, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1576-1586. Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H. and Berge, J.M.t. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.


Page, R. and Curry, A. (2000), “TQM – a holistic view: the international bi-monthly for total quality management”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 11-17. Pande, P.S., Neuman, R.P., Cavanagh, R.R. and George, M.L. (2002), The Six Sigma Way: Team Fieldbook: An Implementation Guide for Process Improvement Teams, McGraw-Hill, Columbus, OH. Patyal, V.S. and Koilakuntla, M. (2015), “Interrelationship between total quality management and Six Sigma: a review”, Global Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1025-1060. Patyal, V.S. and Koilakuntla, M. (2016), “Relationship between organisational culture, quality practices and performance: conceptual framework”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 319-344. Patyal, V.S. and Koilakuntla, M. (2017), “The impact of quality management practices on performance: an empirical study”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 511-535. Powell, T.C. (1995), “Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-37. Prajogo, D., Oke, A. and Olhager, J. (2016), “Supply chain processes: linking supply logistics integration, supply performance, lean processes and competitive performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 220-238. Prajogo, D.I. and McDermott, C.M. (2005), “The relationship between total quality management practices and organizational culture”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1101-1122. Quinn, R.E. and Kimberly, J.R. (1984), “Paradox, planning, and perseverance: guidelines for managerial practice”, Managing Organizational Transitions, Vol. 2 No. 9, pp. 295-313. Quinn, R.E. and McGrath, M.R. (1985), “The transformation of organizational culture: a competing values perspective”, in Frost, P.J., Moore, L.F., Louis, M.R., Lundberg, C.C. and Martin, J. (Eds), Organizational Culture, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 315-334. Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1981), “A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness”, Public Productivity Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 122-140. Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), “A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 363-377. Quinn, R.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1991), “The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture onqualityof life”, in Woodman, R.W. and Pasmore, W.A. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 115-142. Rahman, S.-u. and Bullock, P. (2005), “Soft TQM, hard TQM, and organisational performance relationships: an empirical investigation”, Omega, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 73-83. Raja Sreedharan, V., Raju, R. and Srivatsa Srinivas, S. (2017), “A review of the quality evolution in various organisations”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 351-365. Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA. Shafer, S.M. and Moeller, S.B. (2012), “The effects of Six Sigma on corporate performance: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 521-532.

1423

BIJ 25,5

Shortell, S.M., O’Brien, J.L., Carman, J.M., Foster, R.W., Hughes, E., Boerstler, H. and O’Connor, E.J. (1995), “Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement/total quality management: concept versus implementation”, Health Services Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 377-401. Sila, I. (2007), “Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens of organizational theories: an empirical study”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 83-109.

1424

Sinha, N., Garg, A.K., Dhingra, S. and Dhall, N. (2016), “Mapping the linkage between Organizational culture and TQM: the case of Indian auto component industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 208-235.


Škerlavaj, M., Štemberger, M.I., Škrinjar, R. and Dimovski, V. (2007), “Organizational learning culture – the missing link between business process change and organizational performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 346-367. Sousa, R. and Voss, C.A. (2002), “Quality management re-visited: a reflective review and agenda for future research”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 91-109. Sousa-Poza, A., Nystrom, H. and Wiebe, H. (2001), “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. 744-761. Uluskan, M., Godfrey, A.B. and Joines, J.A. (2016), “Integration of Six Sigma to traditional quality management theory: an empirical study on organisational performance”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 28 Nos 13-14, pp. 1526-1543. Valmohammadi, C. and Roshanzamir, S. (2015), “The guidelines of improvement: relations among organizational culture, TQM and performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 164, pp. 167-178. Waldman, D.A. (1993), “A theoretical consideration of leadership and total quality management”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 65-79. Wilkinson, A. (1992), “The other side of quality:‘soft’issues and the human resource dimension”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 323-330. Yazdani, B., Attafar, A., Shahin, A. and Kheradmandnia, M. (2016), “The impact of TQM practices on organizational learning case study: automobile part manufacturing and suppliers of Iran”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 574-596. Yeo, G.B. and Neal, A. (2004), “A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: effects; of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 231-247. Yeung, K.O., Brockbank, J.W. and Ulrich, D.O. (1991), “Organizational cultures and human resource practices: an empirical assessment”, Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 5, pp. 59-82. Yizhong, M. and Liping, L. (2011), “Integration model and approach to quality management”, IEEEXplore Management and Service Sciences 2011 Proceedings of International Conference, pp. 1-4. Zammuto, R.F. and O’Connor, E.J. (1992), “Gaining advanced manufacturing technologies’ benefits: the roles of organization design and culture”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 701-728. Zeitz, G., Johannesson, R. and Ritchie, J.E. (1997), “An employee survey measuring total quality management practices and culture development and validation”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 414-444. Zhao, X., Flynn, B.B. and Roth, A.V. (2006), “Decision sciences research in China: a critical review and research agenda – foundations and overview*”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 451-496. Zu, X. (2005), “A study of the impact of Six Sigma on firm performance: theoretical analysis and empirical investigation”, PhD dissertation, Clemson University. Zu, X. (2009), “Infrastructure and core quality management practices: how do they affect quality?”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 129-149.

Zu, X., Fredendall, L.D. and Douglas, T.J. (2008), “The evolving theory of quality management: the role of Six Sigma”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 630-650.

QM practices

Zu, X., Robbins, T.L. and Fredendall, L.D. (2010), “Mapping the critical links between organizational culture and TQM/Six Sigma practices”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp. 86-106. Zu, X., Zhou, H., Zhu, X. and Yao, D. (2011), “Quality management in China: the effects of firm characteristics and cultural profile”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 800-821.


Further reading Byrne, B. (1998), Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Costello, A. and Osborne, J. (2005), “Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis”, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 1-9. Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R. (2001), “Firm characteristics, total quality management, and financial performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 269-285. Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, IH (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Schroeder, R.G. (2000), “Six Sigma quality improvement: what is Six Sigma and what are the important implications”, Proceeding of the Fourth Annual International POMS Conference, Seville, August 27-September 1.

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

1425

BIJ 25,5

Appendix

Infrastructure QM practices Top management commitment

1426


Supplier relationship management

Customer relationship management

Workforce management

Six Sigma role structure

Core QM practices Process management

Product/service design

Table AI. Measurement items for infrastructure and core QM practices

Your organization’s top management is evaluated for quality performance In your organization, major department heads participate in the quality improvement process In your organization, “Quality issues” are reviewed in top management meetings In your organization, top management views quality performance as a major objective In your organization, quality policy is developed by top management Your organization trusts on a small number of high quality suppliers Your organization allows supplier’s active participation in product design/ redesign process Your organization has a systematic supplier rating system Your organization provides technical assistance to suppliers Your organization believes in maintaining consistent contact with customers Your customers provide feedback on quality and delivery performance Your organization measures customer satisfaction of external customer Customer requirements are used as the basis for quality in your organization Your organization provides feedback to employees on their quality performance Contractual employees are also involved in quality decisions in your organization Quality-related training is given to contractual employees Quality-related training is given to managers and supervisors in your organization Your organization provides quality Training as “total quality concept” (i.e. philosophy of company-wide responsibility for quality) Black/green belt role structure or equivalent structure is used for continuous improvement in your organization Black/green belt role structure or equivalent structure is used for preparing and deploying individual employees for continuous improvement programs In your organization, roles and responsibilities of members of quality improvement teams are specifically identified Your organization adopts differentiated training for providing necessary knowledge and skills to employees who have different roles in the black/ green belt role structure or equivalent structure In your organization, production is stopped immediately for quality problems Your organization conducts preventive equipment maintenance In your organization, shop floors are well organized and clean Your organization has adopted statistical process control Your organization reviews new product/service designs in detail before the production of product/service In your organization, manufacturing and quality personnel are involved in the product/service development process Your organization makes efforts for clearly needed specifications in the design process

(continued )

Six Sigma structure improvement procedure


Six Sigma metrics

Quality information and analysis

Group culture

Development culture

Rational culture

Hierarchical culture

Your organization follows a structured approach to manage quality improvement activities Your organization pursues a formal planning process to decide the major quality improvement projects In your organization, all improvement projects are reviewed regularly during the process Your organization maintains every record related to the breakthrough improvement project In your organization, the product design process follows a systematic procedure Your organization systematically follows a set of measures (such as defects per million opportunities, sigma level, process capability indices, defects per unit and yield) to evaluate process improvements Your organization measures the performance of core processes against customers’ requirements Your organization considers financial performance (e.g. cost savings, sales) as one of the criteria for evaluating the outcomes of quality improvements Expected financial benefits of a quality improvement project are identified during the project planning phase in your organization Your organization has a comprehensive goal-setting process for quality Quality goals are clearly communicated to employees in your organization Customers’ needs and expectation are translated into quality goals by your organization Your organization manages useful data pertaining to quality (such as error rates, defect rates, scrap, defects, cost of quality, etc.) In your organization, data are available to contractual employees Your organization manages data timely Your organization use data for managing quality

Participation, open discussion Empowerment of employees to act Assessing employee concerns and ideas Human relations, teamwork, cohesion Flexibility, decentralization Expansion, growth and development Innovation and change Creative problem-solving processes Task focus, accomplishment, goal achievement Direction, objective setting, goal clarity Efficiency, productivity, profitability Outcome excellence, quality Control, centralization Routinization, formalization and structure Stability, continuity, order Predictable performance outcomes

About the authors Dr Vishal Singh Patyal is Associate Professor at National Institute of Construction Management and Research (NICMAR) Pune, India. He is Fellow (PhD) in Operations Management at National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE) Mumbai, India. His research interests include quality management, organizational culture, operations and supply chain management, multi-criteria decision making, statistical modelling and design of experiment. He has good knowledge in software for Statistics like

QM practices

1427

Table AI.

Table AII. Measurement items for organization culture CVF

BIJ 25,5


1428

Minitab, SPSS, AMOS, Stata and for Project Management Oracle Primavera P6. Dr Patyal has published his work in various scholarly peer reviewed international journals. He is a reviewer for Journals like International Journal of Production Economics, Benchmarking: An International Journal International, The TQM Journal, Journal of Modeling in Management and International Journal of Advances in Management Research. Dr Patyal has received “Highly Commended Paper” by Emerald Literati Network, UK for his research paper published by Journal of Advances in Management Research. He has also received “Research Excellence Award” by NICMAR, Pune, India in recognition of his excellent contribution to the research activities. Dr Vishal Singh Patyal is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Dr Maddulety Koilakuntla is Deputy Director (Research) working with the SP Jain School of Global Management, Mumbai. He is a Visiting Faculty to several top class B-schools in India and abroad and a Trainer cum Consultant to several MNCs. He has 15 years industry experience with HLL Lifecare Ltd, and a total of 26 years of industrial/teaching experience. In total, 70 plus research papers are in his credit. He is a member of several research committees and academic boards in India. He is a recipient of several national and international awards.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]