Quality values, attitudes, and behavioral predispositions of employees in Mexico, Australia, and the United States

Abstract

This study examined cultural differences in total quality management (TQM) values, attitudes, and behavioral predisposition. The first part of the study reviews the TQM literature to highlight the importance of individual‐level constructs, define salient attitudes and values that impact quality, and theorize about the impact of culture on TQM philosophy. Cultural distance is described and used as the basis for hypothesizing about similarities and differences in TQM values among respondents from climatically similar regions of Mexico, Australia, and the United States. Results provided mixed support for the hypothesized differences in quality values between culturally distant countries. The data imply that quality‐related values, attitudes, and behavioral predispositions may transcend national borders. ©1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The Impact of Culture on Managerial Perceptions of Quality

“…The model consists of a continuum of six factorsnamely, 'communication/shared definition', 'quality execution', 'commitment', 'control/ responsibility', 'current status', and 'measurement'. It is important to note that these factors are similar to those identified as essential in other studies on quality management (Anderson et al, 1994;Ishikawa, 1985;Pavett and Whitney, 1998). …”

“…However, only a limited number of studies have looked at the potential effect of national culture on quality management. Daniel and Reitsperger (1994), Yavas (1995), and Pavett and Whitney (1998) have done some of the pioneering work in this area.…”

“…However, American firms rated higher than their Mexican counterparts in terms of worker participation in management, and employee empowerment to report and correct problems (Knotts and Tomlin, 1994). Pavett and Whitney (1998) hypothesized that countries with similar cultural values (the USA and Australia) would respond similarly to the majority of TQM concepts, while respondents from countries perceived to be very different culturally (the USA and Mexico) would have different views. Using Hofstede's four cultural dimensions, they found significant differences in responses from different national cultures with respect to 'organizational support', 'achievement and behavioral disposition to quality', and 'barriers to quality'.…”

“…Other studies have attributed Japanese manufacturers' success to their ability to convert focus on quality into a competitive advantage (Garvin, 1988;Reitsperger and Daniel, 1990;Pfau, 1989;Yavas, 1995). Pavett and Whitney (1998) cite examples of companies using quality as a tool for providing competitive advantage not only from such industrialized countries as Japan, Germany, Canada and the United States, but also from China, Russia and Mexico.…”

Separation, emulation and competition

“…Through this transfer, as the stories show, local management characteristics which in the corporations' eyes do not seem to be creative and productive enough are repressed. Among these characteristics in the Thai offices are personal ties and harmony between workers and managers and centralization of control (Charoenngam and Jablin, 1999); in the Mexican offices, loose orientation toward organizational processes and hierarchical relationships (Pavett and Whitney, 1998); and in the Israeli offices, self reliance and improvisation (Shahar and Kurz, 1995). At the same time, these very same participative, concealed-power-based practices legitimize and reinforce flexible cultural characteristics such as direct and open interpersonal communications, symmetry in the relationships between workers and managers and the challenge of authority.…”