FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2309942155> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2309942155 startingPage "132" @default.
• W2309942155 abstract "INTRODUCTIONToday, the issue of quality continues to increase in importance among corporations. It is reported that 95% of manufacturing companies and 82% of service companies have implemented some form of quality, participative, management technique (The Conference Board, 2011). One type of quality management technique is quality circles (QC). The benefits of quality circles have included improved quality, increased employee morale and maximization of employee potential. One study found that over 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies have implemented some type of quality circle or involvement programs domestically and in some foreign countries. (Reynolds, 2005). However, despite the widespread adoption, the degree of these successes is and continues to be debated in the 21st Century. One expert (Schermerhorn, 2005) estimates tha t quality circles have failed in more than 60 percent of the American organizations that implemented them. Other researchers have put an historical failure rate as high as 75 percent (Blair & Whitehead, 1994; Marks, 2002). This high failure rate may be d ue to factors such as improper planning and lack of managerial support; however, the purpose of this paper is to re -explore the relationship between management and labor and its impact on the successful implementation of participative programs, specifically quality circles.Employees are one stakeholder group whose support is needed to make any involvement program successful. Whether the labor force is unionized affects quality circle programs (Blair & Whitehead, 1994). However, resistance is often stron gest among unionized employees (Olian & Rynes, 2001). Union members have cited the following perceived drawbacks to quality control programs: erosion of union power, job loss, contract circumvention and the use of quality circle programs as a union avoidance strategy (Leonard, 1995). noted authority on quality circles, Robert Cole (1980) stated: a number of firms, management has simply installed quality circles with only a minimum of consultation with the union. The consequences were predictable; unions saw the circles as just one more attempt to extract increased productivity from the workers without sharing the rewards, or as an attempt to win the loyalty on workers away from the union. Union leaders put pressure on workers not to cooperate, and the circles either never got off the ground or collapsed soon after they were started. ...If circles are to be introduced in a union situation, the union should be part of the program. Union ownership leaders should have a piece of the action or partial ownership, so that rubs off on them as well... If management tries to go it alone, the union will find a thousand ways to sabotage the program. In a number of firms, managers responsible for initiating quality circles were asked how they would do it if they could start all over. Again and again, the answer came back, I would design it together with the union, so that they felt they had a stake in its success (Manning & Curtis, 1989).This paper will provide a model which depicts the roles of both management and labor unions in the development and implementation of involvement programs. The prerequisites of successful quality circles will be revisited and discussed in order that management and labor will be cognizant of those factors necessar y to lead to successful implementation. Further, conclusions, implications and recommendations will be addressed. Additionally, labor law issues concerning quality circles will be addressed. Finally, it is hoped this paper will enlighten old adversaries and demonstrate the need of working together for the betterment of both parties.FACTORS FOR SUCCESSEmployee involvement and specifically the term quality circle carries many different connotations. In an effort to standardize the term, the board of directors of the International Association of Quality Circles (IAQC) adopted the following definition of a quality circle: A Quality Circle is a small group of people who voluntarily meet, on a regular basis, to lea rn and apply techniques for identifying, analyzing, and solving work-related problems (Manning & Curtis, 1989). …" @default.
• W2309942155 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2309942155 creator A5033034795 @default.
• W2309942155 date "2013-07-01" @default.
• W2309942155 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W2309942155 title "Implementing Employee Participative Programs in a Global, Unionized Environment" @default.
• W2309942155 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2309942155 type Work @default.
• W2309942155 sameAs 2309942155 @default.
• W2309942155 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2309942155 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2309942155 hasAuthorship W2309942155A5033034795 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C111162892 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C201305675 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C21547014 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C2775924081 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C2780378061 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C38104776 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C111162892 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C111472728 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C138885662 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C144133560 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C162324750 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C162853370 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C17744445 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C187736073 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C201305675 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C21547014 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C2775924081 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C2779530757 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C2780378061 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C38104776 @default.
• W2309942155 hasConceptScore W2309942155C39549134 @default.
• W2309942155 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2309942155 hasLocation W23099421551 @default.
• W2309942155 hasOpenAccess W2309942155 @default.
• W2309942155 hasPrimaryLocation W23099421551 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W127506096 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W1573524014 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W162910728 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W179113549 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W1810313139 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W2031778601 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W2044969884 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W2049327190 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W2324787310 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W2328977991 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W2461078360 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W2470227593 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W2488746340 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W25160079 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W2567160767 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W259186279 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W2600562525 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W2625335079 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W3187161449 @default.
• W2309942155 hasRelatedWork W350029796 @default.
• W2309942155 hasVolume "11" @default.
• W2309942155 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2309942155 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2309942155 magId "2309942155" @default.
• W2309942155 workType "article" @default.