1
DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF QUALITY AMONGST MANAGERS AND FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES IN A SERVICE ORGANIZATION
Vidyaranya B. Gargeya
479 Bryan Building
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, NC27402 (USA)
Telephone Number: (336) 334-4990
Facsimile: (336) 334-4990
E-Mail Address:
Michael Herzing
Assistant Director
Guilford County Social Services Department
315 W. Lindsay Street
Greensboro, NC27401 (USA)
Telephone Number: (336) 373-7618
Facsimile: (336) 335-5405
E-Mail Address:
and
Maria Aparecida Gouvêa
Universidade de São Paulo
Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 908, sala E-110
Cidade Universitária
Sao Paolo, Brasil. CEP.005508-900
Telephone Number: 55-11-30916044
Facsimile: 55 11 3032 6431
E-Mail Address:
Paper to be presented at the
16th Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society (POMS)
Chicago, IL, April 29 – May 2, 2005
Please address all correspondence to
Vidyaranya Gargeya
1
DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF QUALITY AMONGST MANAGERS AND FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES IN A SERVICE ORGANIZATION
Abstract
It has been very well accepted that differences do exist in perceptions of what quality is. It is particularly difficult to define quality in an organization that provides a service as compared to defining the same in an organization that manufactures a product. Not only do different organizations have distinct definitions for quality, members within the same organization may have different perceptions of quality. This paper reports on an investigation (through a survey) on the extent to which top level managers, middle level managers, and front line (direct-care) employees in a residential care agency differ in their definition of who their customers are. Detailed statistical analysis is also presented in the paper to understand the differences in the perceptions of quality amongst the respondents. The article concludes with some recommendations for service organizations in defining quality.
Key Words: Perceptions of Quality, Service Quality, and Residential Care Agency.
1. Introduction
Coming to terms with a definition of quality is a challenging business. W. Edwards Deming defined quality as “a function of continuos improvement based on reduction in variation around the desired output” (Beckford, 1998, p. 85); Philip B. Crosby defined it as “conformance to requirements (Beckford, 1998, p. 63); while Armand V. Feigenbaum looked upon quality as customer driven and as “a way of running a business organization” (Beckford, 1998, p. 95). A review of other quality gurus would reveal even more variations in definition.
Defining quality in any organization would be useful in helping different members of the organization understand specific dimensions of the service/product that valued by the customers, external and internal to that organization. It would also aid in reducing the variance in the perceptions of what needs to be provided as a part of the product/service by the organization. Furthermore, clear definitions for quality within the organization would increase the accuracy of measurement, which in turn leads to improving performance. It has been well accepted that defining quality in an organization that provides a service is more difficult than defining the same for an organization that produces a manufactured product.
Residential care for foster children has been increasingly under pressure to produce quality care as evidenced through outcome measures of performance (Lyman and Campbell, 1996). But how do residential care facilities define quality? Do they, like Crosby, look on quality as a conformance to the requirement set upon them by their customers? Do they buy into any of the other expert's definition of quality? Or, are they not even looking at the question of “what is quality”? As the pressure mounts to justify the rising costs of treating at-risk children in out of home settings, the issue of quality will take on greater importance. Outcome measurement, while important, may have no meaning if the agency does not build a program with fundamental agreement on what quality is and how it will be built into the program. The purpose of this paper to examine how one agency, Elon Homes for Children, in Elon College, North Carolina, defines quality, and if that definition is shared among executives, middle management, and direct care employees.
This study would aid managers of service organizations in developing definitions for service quality, thereby enhancing the effective provision of services by those organizations. The next section reviews the literature in defining quality. The third section of paper provides the details of the organization, namely, Elon Homes for Children. The fourth section presents the findings of the survey of 26 managers and employees in defining quality at that organization. The last section provides some recommendations and concludes with suggestions for similar service organizations.
2. Review of the Literature
Defining quality in residential care centers for adolescents’ has had extremely limited research. The idea of providing quality care hasn’t. In fact, there is a plethora of literature on quality of care and effectiveness of care in residential settings (Berridge and Brodie, 1998; Northrup, 1994; Reddy and Pfeiffer, 1997; and Wilson and Conroy, 1999;). Unfortunately, the focus in the literature is on effectiveness via outcomes; thus quality is determined from data after the child leaves.
There is an area of concern to note with these studies (in addition to their lack of definition of quality): they were conducted with criteria determined outside of the environment being studied. For example, Berridge and Brodie (1998) selected thirteen variables (Table 1) and then determined scores based on their own observations of the environment. While their variables may appear appropriate, without input from the agency they studied, they may have missed valuable input and data on a variable they mistakenly left out. They also could have included variables the agency felt were unimportant, thus impacting their overall study. In essence, by surveying staff, they could have determined how this agency was defining it’s own “quality of care”.
Take in Table 1
The struggle to define quality must be addressed if we are to develop a measurement instrument in residential care programs. Smith, Whitehall, and Mraz (1997) posited a crucial question regarding quality: “If you can’t define it, how can you attain it?” (p. 41). They struggle with the various quality definitions of Deming, Feigenbaum, and the American Society for Quality Control. In particular, they feel that ASQC’s definition, that “quality is what the customer says it is” (p. 42) is appealing, yet flawed because customer’s aren’t always right, they have unrealistic demands, and suppliers cannot always know what they want. Quality, they say, has several attributes: features, dependability, performance, value, and affordability. Quality of care, then, in a residential care setting, may be thought of as only one attribute of the quality definition.
Roberts and Sergesketter (1993) proposed that customer satisfaction is a workable definition of quality, but cited Schonberger (1988) in recognizing the many dimensions of customer service: performance, quick (or timely) response, quick change expertise, features, reliability, durability, serviceability, aesthetics, perceived quality, humanity, and value (p. 4). In this light, according to Roberts and Sergesketter, quality is more than conformance to specifications, but is an entire subset of attributes of customer satisfaction.
With all of the differences and disagreements over what quality is, it is easy to see how an organization involved in the treatment of at-risk children would focus on outcomes as opposed to building quality into the process/service. Dale, Cooper, and Wilkenson (1997), noted that “quality as a concept is quite difficult for many people to grasp and understand, and much confusion and myth surround it” (p. 2). There is, they go on, “no singly accepted definition of quality” (p. 2) in today’s business world. Quality can no longer be defined as “I know it when I see it”, especially in residential treatment centers where government dollars are shrinking and donors demand results for their dollars.
For quality to have meaning and effect, Dale, Cooper, and Wilkenson (1997) offered the following points:
- The person using the word must have a clear and full understanding of its meaning.
- The people/audience to whom the communication is directed should have a similar understanding of quality as the person making the communication.
- Within an organization, to prevent confusion and to ensure that everyone in each department and function is focused on the same objectives, there should be an agreed definition of quality (p. 2).
In developing the organizations definition, quality can be used qualitatively (non-technical and subjective) or quantitatively (technical and specific). Tamimi and Sebastianelli (1996) conducted a study that set out to determine how firms were defining and measuring quality. Noting that “before quality can be measured it must be defined” (p. 34), they cited Garvin (1987) who, like Dale, Cooper, and Wilkenson (1997), urged managers to “develop a clear vocabulary with which to discuss quality as a strategy” (p. 104). How a firm defines quality, Tamimi and Sebastianelli stated, “drives its improvement efforts and competitive strategy” (p. 34). In response to their questionnaire, the authors were able to develop two lists of quality definitions, one customer-oriented, the other non-customer oriented. Those lists are displayed below in Tables 2 and 3.
Take in Tables 2 and 3
The review of the literature shows that there are several definitions for quality; however, it also shows, that there has been very little work done on understanding how managers and employees in defining quality in a service organization.
3. Details of Organization and Survey
Elon Homes for Children is a large organization with service centers in several parts of North Carolina. It employs 265 persons agency-wide and serves close to 550 children and families annually. It has a ChildDevelopmentCenter in ElonCollege; Therapeutic Foster Care services in GuilfordCounty, the Sandhills Region, and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Area; CharterSchools in Charlotte and ElonCollege; and residential care centers in Charlotte and ElonCollege. The mission of the Home is simple: to provide a continuum of care to children and families that embraces a holistic approach in its treatment. Once an orphanage, Elon Homes for Children now serves primarily abused and neglected children whom are in the custody of the Department of Social Services. The focus of this study is the residential site in ElonCollege, more familiarly known as the Snyder Campus.
Elon Homes for Children was founded in 1907 as the Christian Orphanage. It was essentially able to continue in this mode of operation for the next seventy-five to eighty years. The 1990’s hit the Home fast, hard, and furious. The fee for service rates for placement from $380 per month to $150 per day. Programming was changed from one with live-in caretakers to one with shift workers. Therapists were hired to handle mental health needs on campus, and a school was developed where the children could learn on campus. It seemed as if moneys were readily available for this expansion in programming, which, incidentally was the cause of the increase in fees for services.
The changes in programming had come at a heavy price. The agency was operating at a deficit of nearly $200,000 during fiscal year 1995. Staffing changes demanded more money for personnel costs, and the Home’s endowment fund was borrowed against heavily to upgrade buildings. Due to some of these issues, there was a change in leadership at the Home, and the program had to eventually face some tough decisions. In the spring of 1998, Snyder Campus was forced to downsize its programs, and closed two of the cottages on its campus. The atmosphere was difficult to work in, and mistrust was everywhere. Over the course of the past 14 months, much work has gone into rebuilding the trust between administration and direct care staff.
Externally, the agency was feeling pressure from funding sources, in particular Department of Social Service agencies and donors. The Department of Social Services instituted mandates that all children in its care will remain in its care for only one year. They were looking for permanent homes for children within one year. Donors, as previously mentioned, wanted to be assured that their money was being spent on programs that were effective. Both wanted to see outcomes that met their individual needs. As a result, in January of 1998, Elon Homes for Children began collecting data on children who came and left its care. Currently, that data only provides information on what type of children are being served at the Home. Output information is available on number of children served, yet true outcome data (percent who were “successful”) is not yet being calculated. There has been much discussion amongst the leadership of the Home as to what the actual information will measure. At the root of the problem is the lack of an agency-wide definition of what quality is for the organization.
Organizationally, Elon Homes for Children is structured in a traditional hierarchical manner. The President/CEO has a Leadership Team that reports to him, and each Department Head has middle managers that report to him/her. Reporting to the middle managers are what is considered, in this report, direct-care staff.
A survey instrument was developed based on the previous work of Tamimi and Sebastianelli (1996). The questionnaire is given in Appendix I. The questionnaire has four parts: job title, a question regarding who the respondent felt his/her customers are, a list of job tasks each respondent was responsible for, and a list of definitions for respondents to identify their perceptions of how the organization defined quality. In total, there are 21 possible responses regarding the definition of quality. Respondents were asked to rate each possible definition from 1 to 10, with 10 being the definitions that most closely fit their perceptions of how the agency defined quality.
The “defining quality questionnaire” was distributed to members at all three levels of the organization. In total, 26 questionnaires were filled out – 7 by Leadership Team members (including the President/CEO), 7 by “middle managers”, and 12 by direct-care staff. It is important to note that as an organization, everyone seemed genuinely interested in completing the survey. It appears that the staff is concerned with quality.
4. Defining Quality at Elon Homes for Children
4.1. Univariate statistical analysis
Results of the questionnaire are shown in Table 4 below comparing each “level” of employee to the overall agency definition.
Take in Table 4
Below, Table 5 shows the net differences in ranking between the different levels of employees.
Take in Table 5
Together, Table 4 and Table 5 offer interesting insights into defining quality at Elon Homes for Children. There are clearly some differences in the perceptions of the various levels of employees regarding how the agency defines quality. Table 4 , however, makes it very clear how the agency does not define quality. There was very little difference across employee level regarding the bottom five definitions of quality. The main difference in this area surrounded leaderships concern with performance at an acceptable price, which makes sense since those employees are typically involved with those discussions with referring agencies. Even when looking at the top five overall definitions for the agency, it is clear that there is some general agreement of where the agency needs to head. This aspect will be further discussed in the recommendation section of this paper.
Elon Homes for Children is clearly in the service business. It offers unique programming to a variety of customers. Do its perceived definitions of quality match those identified by Tamimi and Sebastianelli (1996) in their study? Recalling Table 2, the customer-oriented quality definitions identified were: meeting or exceeding customers expectations, delighting or pleasing customers, communicating with customers promptly, providing competitive services to customers on time, commitment to understanding customers’ requirements accurately, knowing and understanding customers, and total customer service and satisfaction. At the Home, of those definitions used in the questionnaire the ranking was 7th, 15th, 12th, 6th, 2nd, and 8th, respectively. There appears to be some differences in how employees at the Home are defining quality! Only one of the Tamimi and Sebastianelli study’s definitions made it into the Homes top 5!
Regarding perceptions of their customers, Table 6 shows the frequency of responses gathered.
Take in Table 6
Nearly 19 percent of the employees at Elon Homes for Children did not identify the children as their customers. Only 33 percent identified the referring agencies. Employees were identified as customers by even less – 32 percent.
Across the board, regardless of positions, there was a wide variance of responses to staff members identification of job responsibilities. Eight out of twelve direct care staff identified themselves as having responsibility in the area of policy development and implementation. Conversely only three of seven middle managers identified this as one of their roles! Only three middle managers and direct care staff total felt they had any marketing responsibilities, while five members of leadership identified this as a responsibility. This means that less than 30 percent of the respondents felt any responsibility to market the Home.
4.2. Multivariate statistical analysis
The factor analysis has been applied to the data basis in order to condense or summarize the information provided by the 21 attributes regarding the definition of quality in a smaller set of factors. This technique is recommended when there is a great number of variables that present some degree of correlation among themselves. The correlation between pair of variables are shown in Table 7. The values more than or equal to 0.60 are highlighted with red color.
Take in Table 7
In this study the perceptions of the employees regarding how the agency defines quality were grouped and reduced to a smaller number of components. Factorial analysis produced 6 factors which as a whole contributed to explain 81% of the variance of the original data, indicating that only 19% of the explanation was not maintained with regard to the original variables.
Factor loadings are the correlation of each variable and the factor. Loadings indicate the degree of correspondence between the variable and the factor , with higher loadings making the variable representative of the factor (Hair et al., 1998, p. 106). Table 8 presents the loadings after factor rotation.