Exploring cultural differences in quality management

Citation

(2003), "Exploring cultural differences in quality management", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 7 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/mbe.2003.26707aab.005

Exploring cultural differences in quality management

Exploring cultural differences in quality management

This is a shortened version of "Quality management in Europe: a cultural perspective" by Stefan Largrosen. It was originally published in The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 5, 2002.

In most fields of business study cultural differences and other national traits are vital fields of study. For instance, international marketing, international strategy, cross-cultural management and cross-cultural marketing are major fields, attracting great interest.

However, quality management is usually seen as a uniform concept to be used in the same way regardless of the context in which the company operates. This is even more peculiar since quality management touches fundamental aspects of an organization. Some authors even claim that successfully introducing TQM in a company requires a cultural transformation. If this is the case it seems reasonable that this cultural transformation might gain from being handled differently depending on the cultural context. Probably, some problems in this regard are more frequent and/or more serious in some countries than in others.

So what differences exist in the way quality management is handled in different cultures? We took a look at four European countries in order to find out.

Quality – a cultural approach

One complication when studying quality and culture is that the cultural influence not only comes from national culture but also from organizational culture. To neutralize this influence it was decided that the study should be carried out at different facilities of one single company. What was needed was a company that has substantial operations in many European countries and that focuses actively on quality management. It was found that SKF, a truly global company with head office in Sweden and whose main products are roller bearings, provided a suitable object of study.

SKF has production facilities in all these countries and thus the studies were carried out in the following places:

• •

  Luton, UK, north of London;

• •

  Schweinfurt, Germany, east of Frankfurt am Main;

• •

  St Cyr, France, north of Tours; and

• •

  Airasca, Italy, west of Turin.

Values of TQM

TQM can be seen as consisting of three different levels:

1. 1.

   On the most superficial level it contains a number of practical tools for quality improvement.

2. 2.

   On a more profound level it entails certain techniques or models.

3. 3.

   The basis for these is found on the third level, which consists of certain values.

Arguably, successful quality management implies that these values are made to permeate the organization.

National culture

Just like TQM, culture can also be seen on different levels. According to Hofstede, cultural values manifest themselves in the following dimensions:

1. 1.

   power distance;

2. 2.

   individualism versus collectivism;

3. 3.

   masculinity versus femininity; and

4. 4.

   uncertainty avoidance.

The differences in the four countries studies are mainly in the dimensions of power distance and uncertainty avoidance. All four countries are individualist, which also is true for basically all European countries. The countries are masculine except France which is medium in this regard. Regarding power distance, however, there are clear differences with UK and Germany scoring low, France scoring high and Italy somewhere in between. Also concerning uncertainty avoidance there is a difference in that all countries have high or fairly high except the UK, which has low uncertainty avoidance. According to Hofstede these two dimensions are most important for corporate matters since they concern power and rules.

So what were the findings at SKF? Did Hofstede's framework match the attitudes of these employees?

The meaning of quality

In UK quality was often discussed in terms of compliance with specifications. Further it was emphasized that quality is a total concept involving all people and all processes. Also quality in the form of customer satisfaction was talked about.

In Germany the main emphasis was on quality as customer satisfaction. Quality was also discussed in terms of planning and co-ordinating in order that the intended results are achieved. Additionally, the meaning of quality was related to people satisfaction. Having a team spirit, good working conditions and a pleasant working climate were factors that were mentioned in this context.

In France the main aspect of quality was that it is a global or total thing. Quality was also discussed in terms of communication. In order to make the employees participate, clear communication was deemed to be of utmost importance. In addition, quality as customer satisfaction was brought up. Also in this context, however, the value of communication was emphasized, in this case communication with the customers.

In Italy the main view of quality that was proposed was quality as an attitude. Included in this attitude concept was having a common view and approach, a willingness to focus on improvements as well as having a holistic vision and not getting stuck in details. Quality was also talked about in terms of excellence. The value of teamwork for achieving quality was emphasized.

Problems concerning quality

Generally, the representatives from all the countries asserted that the quality of the company's products and processes is very high and that problems are relatively few. A genuine pride in working for this company was evident. However, the problems that do tend to arise were the following.

The main problem that was emphasized in UK was that sometimes the people in the company lack commitment for quality. This leads to errors being made and sometimes these errors tend to be repeated, which leads to some frustration. Another problem that was discussed was a lack of time. Due to downsizing of the plant they have fewer employees and thus less personal resources to engage in quality improvements.

In Germany, the problems were mostly related to the organization. Having the right procedures and rules for making priorities was deemed to be necessary and the problems that occur were often related to deficiencies in this regard. Also, the software system was mentioned in this connection. Also in Germany, the problem of being too few was mentioned.

In France, problems were generally related to communication. Related to this were also relations with customers and suppliers in which the communication was not always perfect. Also, language problems were mentioned since the official language of the group is English. Having ample material in French was requested.

In Italy, the problems were frequently linked to the mentality that sometimes is not ideal. There exists, in some cases, a certain conservatism or traditionalism which manifests itself in an unwillingness to try new approaches and methods. It was also mentioned that the employees are not very willing to develop fruitful teamwork but rather want to work in an individual way.

Essential requirements for quality

This final category comes as a natural consequence of the problems concerning quality. This concerns what is needed to solve the problems above and develop total quality.

In UK, this part of the discussion focused entirely around the people. What was said to be needed is to make people committed and take pride in their work. Participation of everybody was emphasized as being of the utmost importance. To achieve this, proper training that makes the people understand the value of their commitment was recommended.

In Germany, the need for proper and effective procedures and systems was highlighted. Also here the importance of the people being committed was emphasized and education was proposed as the means of achieving this.

In France, communication was proposed as the most important way of assuring quality. Ample information, in clear language, to all people on all levels in the organization as well as to customers and suppliers was requested. The value of inspiring leaders was also emphasized.

In Italy, the role of leaders was also emphasized. However, here it was particularly stressed that the leaders should constitute good examples for the employees to follow. The key to success was said to be to really convince people and make them understand, which in turn will make them more committed and more willing to work as teams. The role of the personal example of the leaders for achieving this was underscored.

Discussion

Relating these findings to the theory of the area we find some interesting points. Starting with the cultural dimension of power distance we find that the countries with low power distance (UK and Germany) emphasize training personnel to a greater extent whereas the countries with higher power distance (France and Italy) highlight leadership and the role of the leaders more strongly.

Continuing with the dimension of uncertainty avoidance we found, at first, no obvious differences between UK, which is the only country with low uncertainty avoidance, and the other three. However, a closer analysis indicates that in the UK greater responsibility is put on the individual worker to make appropriate decisions according to his/her own judgement. In the other three countries some outside influence is assumed to be necessary although this outside control comes in different shapes. In France and Italy it comes in the form of the leaders whereas in Germany it is found in the role of the procedures and routines. Thus, this dimension also seems to have an influence on quality management issues.

In summary, many of the findings of the study are in line with Hofstede's framework, which thus seem to be valuable for understanding the influence of national culture on quality management.

Managerial implications

The findings of the study are particularly relevant for top management of multinational companies. In designing their global quality management practices and systems they should benefit from being aware of the differences that have been found. These may have the following implications:

• •

  UK. When implementing quality management practices it will be good to put extra emphasis on involving the workers and giving them ample training. Quality tools that are focused on the workers such as quality circles should be easier to implement in the UK than in many other European countries.

• •

  Germany. It will be necessary that all quality initiatives are well structured and properly defined into a general system. Procedures should be logical and efficient since they are supposed to be followed strictly. Scientifically oriented methods and tools based on statistics such as SPC will probably be more welcome in Germany than in most other European countries.

• •

  France. It is necessary to put maximum weight on communication. Any new quality initiative must be very amply and clearly communicated. When communicating such initiatives to French plants it will not be sufficient to rely on written or electronic communication but personal visits will be necessary. It is also important, as much as possible, to communicate in good French. Further, it will be good to focus on the leaders and see that they are committed.

• •

  Italy. Having committed and suitable leaders will be the key to success. Especially, it will be valuable to find and train leaders that can act as role models and show good examples of quality in their behavior. It is important to not only communicate but also really convince the people of the value of the quality initiatives that are to be implemented. Changes in organization and work methods should probably not be made too rapidly but rather somewhat gradually.

The study has shown that, although the differences in the view and practice of quality management in the studied countries are not huge, there are some vital distinctions. Expressed in an extremely condensed way, we have found a focus on people in UK, on procedure and structure in Germany, on communication in France and on leadership in Italy. These differences are interesting for the theoretical development in the quality management area and knowledge of them should be of practical value for managers of multinational companies.