متا آنالیز رابطه بین شیوه های مدیریت کیفیت و مفاهیم عملکرد شرکت برای توسعه نظریه مدیریت کیفیت

Quality management (QM) has received a high degree of attention in extant literature. Several research papers attribute superior firm performance to adoption of QM practices. The availability of a large number of research papers that investigate the impact of QM practices on performance provide an ideal setting for theory extension and refinement using meta-analysis techniques. In this paper a meta-analytic study is presented that fulfills two objectives. First, the paper formalizes performance implications of adopting QM practices and present hypothesized relationship between QM practices and performance. Second, a meta-analysis of correlation (Hunter and Schmidt, 1990) approach is used to examine the empirical research in QM to determine which QM practices are positively related to improved performance. The study also examines the presence of moderating factors in the association between QM practices and performance. The results support many hypothesized relationships and also point towards the presence of moderating factors in almost all QM practice–performance relationships. A discussion of the findings is presented and directions for further development of QM theory are proposed.

Quality management (QM) represents one of the most significant research themes in operations management. Dean and Bowen (1994) highlight the increased level of interest in QM in many sectors of economy such as manufacturing, service, health care, education, and government. Today QM is a widely accepted organizational goal for several companies. While in the late 1980s and early 1990s several quality management initiatives such as “Total Quality Management” carried a faddish element with it, it is now widely believed that the underlying practices in QM are fundamental and essential for effective management and competitive survival of organizations. Theory development in this sphere of organizational practice is important and has consequences for both academic researchers and practitioners. Thus, a close examination of the research findings associated with QM is critical for furthering knowledge in this area. This meta-analytic study is an effort in this direction to gain further insights into the performance implications of QM practices. Although QM has only emerged in the management literature over the past 15 years, antecedents of the movement have been in existence for much longer (McAdam and Henderson, 2004). With the tremendous growth of literature in both academic and practitioner-oriented outlets, the term QM has been diluted to mean different things and the scope of activities underlying QM lack consensus (Watson and Korukonda, 1995). Yet, over time in the academic literature the term has gained consistency in its meaning. Hackman and Wageman (1995) highlight the strong evidence of convergent and discriminant validity of quality management construct as proposed by its founders. In a recent paper, commenting on the validity of quality management, Sousa and Voss (2002, p. 106) conclude that, “QM as espoused by its founders, can be reliably distinguished from other strategies for organizational improvement and there is substantial agreement in the literature as to which practices fall under the QM umbrella”. The paper provides an excellent account of the present state of quality management research and an agenda for future research. The authors suggest that (p. 94), “the agreement in the literature on what constitutes QM indicates that QM as a field has indeed matured and is laid down on solid definitional foundations”, and assert that while the definitional issues are more or less resolved, there is still a need to “incrementally build on the already existing base” (Sousa and Voss, 2002, p. 94). A meta-analysis of the findings in extant literature can provide impetus to the incremental theory development activity in QM. This meta-analytic study critically and quantitatively examines the literature and evaluates the performance implications of QM practices. The early stages of empirical research in QM created instruments capable of measuring QM practices and performance constructs (Saraph et al., 1989, Flynn et al., 1994 and Ahire et al., 1996). These constructs are present in the frameworks used for the national quality awards, such as the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award in the US and the European Quality Award (Sousa and Voss, 2002). Using these constructs, several research studies have examined the link between QM practices and performance. Scholars have investigated both direct and indirect effects of QM practices on performance. A large body of literature highlights the positive implications of QM practices on performance (see for example, Flynn et al., 1995, Anderson et al., 1995, Choi and Eboch, 1998, Das et al., 2000, Ahire and Dreyfus, 2000, Cua et al., 2001, Douglas and Judge, 2001, Ho et al., 2001, Kaynak, 2003 and Shah and Ward, 2003). Mohrman et al. (1995) found that 83% of the surveyed companies had a “positive or very positive” experience with QM, and 79% planned to “increase or greatly increase” their QM initiatives in the next 3 years. Meanwhile, studies also find evidence pointing towards mixed performance implications accrued from QM practices. For example, Dow et al. (1999) find that employee commitment, shared vision, and customer focus practices are positively related to performance but “hard” practices such as benchmarking, cellular work teams, advanced manufacturing technologies, and close supplier relations do not positively contribute to improved performance. Studies have also highlighted the failure of QM implementations in delivering the desired performance benefits. Some of these studies reported estimates of QM failure rates as high as 60–67% (Dooyoung et al., 1998). Fredrickson (1984) found that comprehensive decision-making in QM was negatively related to performance in the highly unstable forest product industry. Researchers have concluded that rational comprehensive quality data analysis and information processing is of limited use or even counterproductive under conditions in which multiple problem definitions are possible, goals are ambiguous, or uncertainty is great (Daft and Lengel, 1986, Daft et al., 1988, Lord and Maher, 1990 and March and Olsen, 1976). Dean and Bowen (1994) state that, “as total quality management moves from the buffered technical core of manufacturing toward use in research, marketing, and customer service activities, such conditions are more likely”. These mixed findings and the need to gain further insights into generalized QM practices-performance link provide motivation for this replication study. Several research articles have explicated the importance of replication and its role in the conduct of scientific inquiry (Bornstein, 1990, Brown Gaulden, 1982, Greenwald, 1975, Leone and Schultz, 1980, Lykken, 1968, Madden et al., 1979, Mahoney, 1987, Mittelstaedt and Zorn, 1984, Monroe, 1991, Monroe, 1992, Neuliep and Crandall, 1990 and Reid et al., 1981). Replication research plays an important role in external validation of cause-and-effect relationships (Cook Campbell, 1979). Hubbard and Vetter (1996) state that replication research aids in ensuring the integrity of a discipline's empirical results and in contributing to the growth of knowledge by guarding against Type I errors (erroneous rejections of the null hypothesis) and other questionable findings and by assessing the robustness and empirical generalizability of results. Easley et al. (2000) assert, “If the goal of science is to produce universal truths, inherent to this goal is the task of adequate theory development and refinement, in which the criterion of reproducibility should be inextricably intertwined”. In line with the underlying objective of a replication study, this paper uses meta-analysis technique to aid development and refinement of QM theory. Meta-analysis attempts to establish the reproducibility of results by synthesizing and integrating existing findings through the use of effect sizes of the phenomena. Research findings are influenced, among other factors, by sampling errors, unit of analysis, operationalization of key constructs and the research methodology adopted for investigation. This meta-analysis of correlation study delves into the published research that links QM practices and performance to investigate the impact of these factors on the observed relationships. Correlations are the simplest first level associations between two variables. Specifically, the meta-analysis of correlation in this paper contributes toward answering the following research questions: - Which QM practices are positively correlated with aggregate firm performance? - Which QM practices are positively correlated with individual dimensions of performance? - Are there other moderating factors that influence the relationship between QM practices and performance? The paper answers these questions by using the data from research studies published between 1995 and 2004. The emerging theory of QM is extended by studying the relationship between commonly examined QM practices—management leadership, people management, process management, product design and management, quality data analysis, supplier quality management, and customer focus—and the various dimensions of firm performance, i.e., financial performance, operational performance, product quality and customer service. By means of empirical generalization and knowledge development (Hubbard et al., 1998a and Hubbard et al., 1998b) this meta-analytic study of the findings in QM literature attempts to gain further insights into the QM practice-performance link (Amundson, 1998, p. 355). The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The next section extensively reviews the relevant literature, outlines the research objectives and presents the hypotheses of this research. Section 3 describes the meta-analysis research method and explains the procedures used in this paper. In Section 4, the results of meta-analysis are presented and in Section 5 the findings of the study and the limitations are discussed. Finally, Section 6 presents the conclusions of this paper and provides directions for future research.

This study of the relationship between QM practices and performance is an effort to extend and refine the theory of QM. It clarifies the associations and provides motivation for further studies towards the development of a comprehensive QM theory. Overall, the results reveal a positive correlation between several QM practices and firm performance dimensions. This provides impetus for practitioners to continue adopting QM practices in their organizations. This study provides some directions for future research. In future empirical studies that examine the performance implications of QM practices, researchers are encouraged to present a detailed correlation matrix that they obtain between the QM practices; between QM practices and performance; and between different performance measures. This will enable more comprehensive meta-analytic studies in future, furthering the process of development of QM theory. Future studies should consider the role of moderating factors in understanding the impact of quality management on various performance measures. Recently, researchers have started an explicit investigation of contextual moderating and mediating effects (Choi and Eboch, 1998, Douglas and Judge, 2001, Sousa and Voss, 2001 and Shah and Ward, 2003), however, more studies are needed to obtain further clarity. Future investigation should evaluate if same moderating variables influence each specific relationship between QM practice and performance or are these moderating effects dependent on specific QM practice and performance measure that is under investigation. Highlighting the approach that companies adopt towards implementing QM, Spencer (1994) state, “QM is a systematic approach to the practice of management, requiring changes in organizational processes, strategic priorities, individual beliefs, individual attitudes, and individual behaviors (Olian and Rynes, 1991). It is not a cut-and-dried reality but an amorphous philosophy that is continuously enacted by managers, consultants, and researchers who make choices based not only on their understanding of the principles of QM but also on their own conceptual frameworks concerning the nature of organizations”. The proponents of the organismic model of QM maintain that a common error in the implementation of QM is the failure to recognize that every company, and every environment, is different (Laza and Wheaton, 1990). Therefore, it is important to properly align QM practices with competitive environments and strategies (Chorn, 1991). Several proponents of QM assert that instead of looking at contextual environments as a vital source of resources and constraints, QM must consider a boundaryless organization. In this view, the boundaries between organizations and environments are blurred and elements that were formerly conceived as part of the environment must now be a part of the organization.