Quality practices, priorities and performance: an international study

hypothesis [Form, 1979] and the “culture-specific” hypothesis [Hofstede, 1980]. The latter two are of most
interest to the authors of this paper in an international comparison of quality practices, priorities and
performance. The “convergence” hypothesis [Form, 1979] asserts that learning will lead managers from
different cultures to adopt the same efficient management practices. Competitive pressures will eliminate
those who resist convergence, consequently with the increased dissemination about good quality practices
around the world, one would expect each country’s respondent to embrace the same approach of their
overseas counterparts. The “culture-specific” argument [Hofstede, 1980] contends that even if managers
located in different societies face similar imperatives for change, deep-embedded cultural factors will still
affect the way managers approach quality and react to the need for change. Both these hypothesis find
equivocal support in empirical studies of quality management practices. On the one hand, the “convergence”
hypothesis is supported by several empirical studies. Zhao, Maheshwari and Zhang [1995] for instance, try to
examine the quality management practices of three developing nations such us India, China and Mexico and
to compare them with those in developed nations. The results of their study show that the majority of the
manufacturers in these developing countries are aware of the modern quality management practices and that
their quality improvement efforts were not much lower than those in the developed countries. In line with this
argument, Chin et. al. [2002] carry out a comparative study on quality management practices in Hong Kong
and Shanghai manufacturing industries. Yet, the findings support the hypothesis that there are not any visible
differences in terms of quality practices, although Shanghai companies seem to pay more attention to
environmental impact while Hong Kong counterparts pay more attention to market and customer feedback.
Similarly, Abdul-Aziz et. al. [2000] by comparing quality practices in the manufacturing industry in the UK
and Malaysia, find that there is a common reliance on inspection and relatively low use of programmes for
quality improvement. According to the authors, there are a few significant differences (e.g. the use of quality
improvement teams) between the two countries and those marginal differences are related to the types of
quality practices promoted by their respective governments. A similar argument has been brought forward by
Ismail and Ebrahimpour [2003]. Their study examines and compares the critical factors of total quality
management (TQM) across countries and their findings suggest that top management commitment and
leadership, customer focus, information and analysis, training, supplier management, strategic planning,
employee involvement, human resource management, process management, teamwork and others were the
most commonly factors affecting quality practices and performance. On the other hand, there is a critical mass
of empirical research that supports the “culture-specific” argument. Tata et. al. [2000] for instance analyse
quality management practices in Costa Rica and compare them to those in the U.S. The results indicate that
Costa Rican companies are still lagging behind U.S. operations in terms of human resource development,
customer focus and satisfaction. According to this study, given the unique economic, cultural, and geographic
variations among countries, companies can be more successful in adopting and implementing quality
practices if they account for these regional differences. Similarly Corbett et. al. [1998] discuss the findings
from a survey of 599 managers in five countries in the Asia/South Pacific region in an attempt to unveil how
similar the practices and the resulting performance were. The results indicate more divergence by countries
from the region’s mean scores on practices than on performance. Hong Kong firms, for example had a
distinctly different set of outcomes with quality costs influenced by high levels of inspection. Overall, the
findings support the “culture-specific” hypothesis on both counts as quality is pursued and achieved.
Raghunathan et. al. [1997] compare the quality management practices of three different countries - the U.S.,
India and China. Although quality practices were considered very important by all the respondents, the
ANOVA results point to statistically significant differences among the three countries with respect to quality
practices. According to the authors, these differences can be explained by the fact that in both China and India
quality awareness is relatively new and quality standards may not be as high as in the U.S. Hence, the
expectations or standards may be lower in these countries and hence a marginal improvement in quality can

<<   <   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >   >>