IJQRM
12,4
72
Received January 1994
Revised April 1994
International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management,
Vol. 12 No. 4, 1995, pp. 72-78,
© MCB University Press,
0265-671X
Quality management and job
satisfaction
An empirical study
Simon S.K. Lam
Department of Management Studies, University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong
Introduction
During the past decade, managerial concern for quality has reached
unprecedented levels. The present “quality revolution” has been fired by
increased international competition and many companies have now accepted
the challenge of improving quality and have recently begun extensive total
quality management (TQM) programmes. Most of the TQM programmes claim
to help a company to increase customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction and
productivity[1]. Research has confirmed the strategic benefits of quality
programmes and better quality has been shown to contribute to greater market
share and return on investment[2,3], as well as lower manufacturing costs and
improved productivity[4]. There is a widespread consensus that TQM is a way
of managing organizations to improve their customers’ satisfaction[5] but there
is less agreement as to whether TQM programmes can help organizations to
improve their employees’ satisfaction. This study examines what effects
workers see TQM programmes having on their jobs and whether workers
perceive an increase in job satisfaction because of TQM.
Total quality management and human resources management
A considerable amount has been written about TQM, both conceptually[6] and
on a practical level[7]. Most of the TQM programmes aim to:
● understand and improve the organizational process;
● refocus the company on the customers’ needs; and
● involve and motivate the people in achieving quality output.
TQM programmes have both “hard” and “soft” sides[8]. The former involves
the improvement of the production process and can include a range of process
design and control tools like quality function development (QFD), just-in-time
inventory and statistical process control. The soft side of TQM is concerned
with creating customer awareness among employees and enlisting their
commitment to improve quality in the organization. For a TQM programme to
be successful, the commitment to total quality needs to encompass the whole
workforce who must be encouraged to participate actively in the search for
continuous quality improvement. The soft side, thus, emphasizes the QM and job
management of human resources. Seddon[9] argues that the waning of satisfaction
employee support for TQM can be attributed to management’s focus on the
hard side and the relative neglect of the soft side; when managers give little
attention to examining the underlying values and resulting behaviour of
employees and to managing the cultural change which is necessary, if TQM is
to be successful. 73
Employee satisfaction
Extensive research has been conducted on the subject of job satisfaction over
the last quarter century[10]. Research findings suggest that job satisfaction is
not a static state but is subject to influence and modification from forces within
and outside an individual, that is his or her own personal characteristics and the
immediate working environment[11]. The introduction of total quality
management is likely to affect many different aspects of the employees’ jobs and
work. The results of a TQM programme are usually new quality, policies, new
organizational structures, new operations processes, and new ways of
evaluating performance outputs and these changes may have an effect on
employees’ daily work and their job satisfaction. While the employees are
encouraged to take the responsibility for quality in their hands, it is not possible
to expect quality service and reliable products if the work becomes
unsatisfying.
A review of empirical studies of job satisfaction[10,12,13] indicates that
working conditions which help in attaining interesting work, reasonable
workload, pay and promotions, and in minimizing role conflict and ambiguity,
will lead to job satisfaction. There is a widespread consensus that TQM is a
way of managing organizations to improve their customer satisfaction. But
there is less agreement whether TQM results in an improvement of employees’
working conditions that leads to job satisfaction. It should not be assumed that
a workforce would necessarily welcome TQM. What is seen by TQM trainers as
an unambiguously positive impact on employees may be seen by others as
increasing pressure on employees by getting them to take on more work and
responsibility. This study looks at what changes employees see TQM
programmes having on their jobs and whether they perceive an increase in job
satisfaction because of TQM.

Survey considerations
Research question
This article reports the results of a survey that was designed to answer a
general question:
How do workers perceive the change, if any, in job satisfaction as the result of
a total quality management programme?
Past research provides very little evidence concerning this question. When,
however, preliminary interviews were conducted in preparation for this survey,
the author was struck by the number of negative responses he encountered.
IJQRM The workers in the survey reported that TQM programmes had generally led to
12,4 a variety of changes in the nature of their jobs, but these changes did not
necessarily enhance their job satisfaction.

Front-line supervisors’ perceptions

Since front-line supervisors have often been identified as the workers likely to
74 be most influenced by TQM they were chosen as the targets for this survey. A
major responsibility of front-line supervisors is to oversee the production
process of the final product or the sales process to the customer, and their work
is likely to be affected strongly by TQM. They also occupy a central position in
the quality process and are likely to be well aware of the impact of various
changes on the TQM effectiveness of the organization. Front-line supervisors
should, therefore, be able to give a clear picture of the changes resulting from
the introduction of TQM programmes.

Perceptions of job satisfaction

To determine the full range of potential changes, the job satisfaction[12,13] and
work design[14,15] literature within the field of organizational behaviour was
consulted. The job descriptive index (JDI) was selected to measure job
satisfaction in this research because it is the measure of job satisfaction used
most widely and it is applicable across a wide variety of demographic
groups[16]. The 72-item instrument was designed to measure five theoretically
and practically useful dimensions of job satisfaction – satisfaction with work
itself; with supervision; coworkers; promotion opportunities; and pay.

Research methodology
Subjects and procedure
Questionnaires were sent in September 1993 to 462 front-line supervisors from
eight diverse organizations which had been running a TQM programme for
more than two years. Included were the head offices of one conglomerate, one
international bank, two major manufacturers, two retailing companies and two
construction companies all located in Hong Kong. Contacts within each
organization distributed the questionnaires and the researcher emphasized to
the contacts that they were to distribute questionnaires to all qualifying front-
line supervisors, defined as front-line operational staffs with supervisory
responsibilities. From 23 to 94 questionnaires (depending on the size of the
organization) were distributed by each contact.
Each respondent was guaranteed anonymity and provided with a stamped,
pre-addressed envelope. Of the questionnaires, 220 were returned for analysis
(47.6 per cent of those distributed) – a reasonable return rate for a survey of this
type. All but nine of the returned questionnaires were usable. Thus, a final
sample of 211 front-line supervisors was obtained and used in the analysis.
The respondents ranged in age from 20 to 59 years with a mean age of 32.5
years and 68 per cent were female. Of the sample, 75 per cent had a high school
education; 23 per cent had some university education or an undergraduate
degree; a further 2 per cent had at least some graduate training. Respondents QM and job
had been in their organizations from one to 31 years with a mean tenure of 6.4 satisfaction
years. It would appear, on the whole, that a diverse and representative sample
of organizations and individuals was included.

Measures
Participants were given a questionnaire asking for their perceptions of the 75
TQM programmes in their company and the effects of such programmes on
their jobs and work. They were first asked a number of questions about the
objectives of the TQM programmes and respondents were also asked to indicate
on a scale of 1 (no commitment) to 5 (full commitment) the commitment of their
companies to TQM. Participants were then asked to indicate how total quality
management programmes had influenced their job satisfaction. The
questionnaire incorporated Smith et al.’s[13] job descriptive index ( JDI) to
measure the respondents’ satisfaction with five aspects of their job: work;
supervision; pay; promotion; and coworkers. Specifically, they were asked to
state whether TQM programmes had increased their satisfaction in these five
aspects. Each of the items used a three-point scale ranging from “yes”, to
“cannot decide” to “no”. Finally, each respondent was asked to give comments
on the perceived impact of TQM on each of the five aspects of the job
descriptive index (JDI).

Results of the survey

In the first part of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate the
main objectives and the commitment to the TQM programmes in their
company. Almost all respondents stated that the main objective of the TQM
programmes was to satisfy the customers. Other objectives mentioned were
reducing costs and improving process capacity. The commitment of Hong Kong
companies to TQM appeared to be high. The average score was high (4.04) and
only 33 (10.6 per cent) respondents said their company had no or less than
average commitment to TQM.
The means, standard deviations and alpha coefficients are presented in
Table I. The internal consistency of the five dimensions is very high. All scales
have alpha coefficients higher than 0.70. As the ranges of possible values for the
five job satisfaction dimensions are different, there is strictly no basis for
comparing the mean of one satisfaction dimension with another. However, the

Number of Alpha Standard

Job satisfaction items coefficients Means deviations

Work 18 0.72 –7.45 4.56

Table I.
Supervision 18 0.84 10.45 5.44
Means and standard
Pay 18 0.80 2.10 7.21
deviations of change in
Promotion 9 0.77 0.44 2.31
job descriptive index
Coworkers 9 0.82 6.34 3.48
due to TQM
IJQRM negative means of the work dimension indicate that the respondents were much
12,4 less satisfied with this dimension than with the other JDI dimensions. The large
positive means of supervision and coworkers suggest that TQM programmes
have improved job satisfaction in these two areas. However, with the means
very close to zero, TQM has apparently had no effect on the job satisfaction
with regard to pay and promotion.
76 Table II lists the perceived changes in the front-line supervisors’ jobs due to
the TQM programmes. The list was culled from the comments made by the
respondents.
Work seems to have become more demanding because of TQM: 66.8 per cent
of the respondents perceived that the workload of the job had increased, 55.5 per
cent perceived an increase in skill needed to perform the job and 55.0 per cent
felt that the accuracy demanded on the job had also increased. However, only
21.8 per cent and 32.2 per cent of the respondents saw an increase in the
importance and interest of the job respectively. Of the respondents, 64.9 per cent
claimed to have greater knowledge of their job performance because of TQM;
74.9 per cent claimed to have greater responsibility for the results of their job
and 74.9 per cent claimed to have better relationships with their fellow workers.
However, only 5.7 per cent of the respondents felt that they had more freedom in
performing their jobs. Job security and opportunity for advancement seem to
have been left unaffected for most. Only 10.0 per cent of the respondents felt an
increase in job security and only 18.5 per cent perceived an increase in
opportunity for advancement. Only 16.1 per cent of the respondents claimed
that their overall job satisfaction had increased and only 14.7 per cent of the
respondents felt that personal effectiveness had been improved because of the
TQM programmes.

Perceived changes Number of respondents Percentage

Increased workload 141 66.8

Increased skill needed 117 55.5
Increased accuracy demanded 116 55.0
Increased importance of job 46 21.8
More interesting work 68 32.2
Increased responsibility for the results 158 74.9
Increased autonomy in how to do the job 12 5.7
Increased knowledge of supervision 136 64.5
Improved relationship with fellow workers 149 70.6
Increased job security 21 10.0
Table II.
Perceived changes Increased opportunity for advancement 39 18.5
in the front-line Increased overall job satisfaction 34 16.1
supervisors’ jobs Increased personal effectiveness 31 14.7
due to TQM
Conclusion QM and job
These results suggest that a TQM programme does not necessarily enhance all satisfaction
aspects of employee satisfaction. TQM programmes improve the coworker
relationship and the knowledge of supervision about their jobs. However, TQM
has made work more demanding – there is more of it and it requires greater
individual skill and accuracy. However, most of the respondents do not seem to
like this change, stating that TQM programmes do not make their work more 77
interesting and important. In addition, respondents believed that TQM had
reduced their autonomy. They stated that they now had less freedom in how to
do their job but greater responsibility for the results of their work. While they
did not perceive any great change in pay, job security and promotional
opportunities, the respondents said that they now had greater knowledge of the
results of their work and the working relationships with their fellow employees
had improved. As a whole, respondents claimed that TQM had not increased
their overall job satisfaction and that their personal effectiveness had not been
increased because of TQM.
The survey also revealed that the most common objective of the TQM
programmes was to satisfy customers’ needs. The companies have included
employee training in quality awareness, quality systems, statistical process
control, quality circles and other programmes but, while these may enhance the
employees’ abilities to achieve the goal of customer satisfaction, they do not
necessarily enhance employees’ own satisfaction.
In current TQM programmes, employees apparently end up doing more
work, which requires more skill and accuracy. Employees may be treated as
tools for achieving quality, goals with management trying to make sure they are
“calibrated” and ready to do their job. They are trained to produce quality and
sometimes this means that they are “programmed” and have little autonomy in
how to do the work. Their feelings of satisfaction and importance are a vital
part of the TQM objective. Unless the employees are content in their roles, they
cannot be expected to satisfy their internal and external customers.
How to identify and satisfy customers’ requirements is well elaborated in
current TQM literature, but TQM programmes also need to identify and satisfy
employees’ requirements. Quality management often fails because it over-
emphasizes the hard side of quality and neglects the soft side – the people, and
forgets that it depends on broad-based employee involvement and commitment.
All staff contribute to customer satisfaction through the quality chain and all
the people in an organization need to be motivated towards a common goal. To
expect the establishment of a magic quality control system to produce all the
desired results is naïvely optimistic. The necessary links must be built on
people and companies need to realize that a good way to move towards quality
excellence is through a concerted effort to improve not only the quality of the
product or service but also the quality of the working life of their employees.
Since employees’ jobs may become more demanding because of TQM, they
need to be equipped to handle the work through training and be motivated to
take up the challenges through incentives.
IJQRM TQM has far reaching implications for the management of human resources.
12,4 To ensure the commitment of employees to TQM, human resources
management needs must be integrated into the TQM process and the hard side
of TQM must be accompanied by equal attention to the soft side of the process.
When companies adopt statistical process control tools or just-in-time
inventory, they need to think through the organization’s human resources
78 policies, including the organization of work, pay, working conditions, reward
systems and the training and development of the employees. The soft side must
reinforce the employees’ commitment to quality and enhance their job
satisfaction and the extent to which this is done may decide the success or
failure of TQM. It is clear that the current TQM programmes fall short of this
balance and that we need to be aware that, as Wilkinson[8] puts it, whether we
take this issue seriously will eventually determine the future of TQM.

References
1. Wollner, G.E., “The law of producing quality”, Quality Progress, January 1992, pp. 35-40.
2. Cole, R.E., “Improving product quality through continuous feedback”, Management
Review, Vol. 72 No. 10, 1983, pp. 8-12.
3. Phillips, L.W., Chang, W.D. and Buzzell, R.D., “Quality, cost position and business
performance: a test of some key hypotheses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 7, 1983, pp. 26-43.
4. Garvin, D.A., “Quality on the line”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61 No. 5, 1983, pp. 65-75.
5. Lawton, R.L., “Creating a customer-centred culture for service quality”, Quality Progress,
Vol. 22, May 1989, pp. 34-6.
6. Ahmad K., Venetta, J.M. and Nael, A.A., “Concepts and attributes of total quality
management”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, 1991, pp. 75-97.
7. Gitlow, H.S. and Alan, R.O., Tools and Methods for the Implementation of Quality, Irwin,
Boston, MA, 1989.
8. Wilkinson, A., “The other side of quality: ‘soft’ issues and the human resource dimension”,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, 1992, pp. 323-29.
9. Seddon, P., “A passion for quality”, The TQM Magazine, May 1989, pp. 135-57.
10. Locke, E.A., “The nature and cause of job satisfaction”, Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL, 1976, pp. 1308-9.
11. Baran, R., Understanding Behaviour in Organizations, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, 1986.
12. Lawler, F.E., Motivation in Work Organizations, Brooks, Monterey, CA, 1973.
13. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hulin, C.L., The Measurement of Satisfaction inWork and
Retirement, Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL, 1969.
14. Hackman, J.R. and Lawler, E.E. III, “Employee reactions to job characteristics”, Journal of
Applied Psychology Monograph, Vol. 55 No. 3, June 1971, pp. 259-86.
15. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1980.
16. Yeager, S.J., “Dimensionality of the job descriptive index”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, 1981, pp. 205-12.