Journal of Applied Psychology1986, Vol. 71, No. 1,61-69

Copyright 1986 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0021-9010/B6/S00.75

Employee Participation in a Quality Circle Program: Impacton Quality of Work Life, Productivity, and Absenteeism

Mitchell Lee MarksCalifornia School of Professional Psychology—Los Angeles

Edward J. HackettRensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Philip H. MirvisCenter for Applied Social Science

Boston University

James F. Grady, Jr.National Board of Medical Examiners,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The impact of participation in a Quality Circle (QC) program on employee quality of work life (QWL)attitudes and on productivity and absenteeism behaviors was studied among direct labor employeesin a manufacturing firm. Participants (n = 46) and nonparticipants (n = 46) were surveyed beforeand after implementation of the QC program. Multiple regression analysis revealed a positive relationbetween QC participation and changes in QWL perceptions in areas directly involved in QC activitiesbut not in more general work life areas. Given that participants' QWL scores tended not to changeand nonparticipants tended to report decreases in QWL from before to after the QC program imple-mentation, the results suggest QC involvement acted more to provide social support to buffer participantsfrom negative contextual factors than to enhance equality of work life. Organizational records alsowere assessed from 6 months before to 24 months after adoption of the QC program and showed thatQC participation led to improvements in employee productivity and absenteeism rates.

While organizations attempt to make better use of their re-

sources by demanding increased productivity from employees,

many people in the contemporay workforce have their own de-

mands for jobs that allow them to make greater use of their skills

and knowledge, that meet their expectations that work should

be meaningful, and that provide intrinsic rewards (O'Toole,

1977). As an intervention to meet these demands, managers from

many American work organizations are giving attention to

Quality Circle (QC) programs popularized in Japan. Though

some minor modifications do exist across specific applications,

most QC programs tend to share a basic format: small groups

of people who perform similar work voluntarily meet on a regular

basis to discuss, analyze, and propose solutions to work-related

problems. Although directed toward solving job-related quality

problems and improving methods of production, QC activities

are expected to lead also to improved working conditions and

greater opportunities for expression and self-development for

participating employees—aspects of one's "psychological quality

of work life" (Lawler, 1975)—and to increased productivity and

cost reductions (Cole, 1980).

Despite the frequency with which Quality Circle programs

have been adopted in work organizations, there is a paucity of

knowledge generated by independent evaluators using rigorous

methods as to the impact of participation in a QC on employee

attitudes and behaviors. The available reports are limited to tes-

timonials from managers and consultants who have implemented

We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful commentsand Ladd Graham and James Stophcl for their efforts in preparing themanuscript.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Mitchell LeeMarks, Organizational Psychology Program, California School of Profes-sional Psychology, 2235 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90057.

QC programs (e.g., Barra, 1983; Schwartz & Comstock, 1979).

Reported results tend to be unsubstantiated statements such as

"the QC program raised employee morale" rather than carefully

denned or measured changes in work life facets. Some reports,

however, cite behavioral data showing that rates of tardiness,

absenteeism, and work reductions have been reduced for QC

participants (Beardsley & Dewar, 1977; Yeager, 1979).

Although there is little evidence regarding how Quality Circle

participation might specifically influence employee quality of

work life, productivity, and attendance in organizations, much

of the logic of the QC technique follows from broader organi-

zational behavior knowledge. That is, the claims made by QC

proponents—though not scientifically observed within the QC

context—are consistent with the findings observed from other

participative or job design manipulations in organizations.

First, the basic objectives of a Quality Circle program are to

generate high-quality solutions to work-related problems and to

improve communication channels, both hierarchical and lateral.

Quality Circles are claimed to enhance the decision making pro-

cess by providing a setting in which the assets of group decision

making—greater sum total of knowledge, variety of approaches

to a problem, and better comprehension of decision (Maier,

1967)—can be realized. Moreover, QCs are purported to facilitate

communication not only of work-related problems within groups,

but also of organizational goals, procedures, and problems and

opportunities located outside of one's work group. Most studies

show that participation contributes to the amount of information

employees have about decisions and to their feelings of com-

mitment to the successful implementation of decisions (Locke

& Schweiger, 1979).

Next, Quality Circles are said to improve the job characteristics

for those who participate in the technique. The claims of QC

proponents parallel the principles of job design theories, such as

62 M. MARKS, P. MIRVIS, E. HACKETT, AND J. GRADY

Hackman and Oldham's (1980) job characteristics model. QC

participation, it is argued, enhances the degree to which a member

experiences work as meaningful, obtains knowledge of the results

of one's work, and feels a personal responsibility for the outcome

of work. These critical psychological states, then, should lead to

outcomes such as high internal work motivation, high-quality

work performance, high satisfaction with work, and low absen-

teeism and turnover.

Third, QC participation is proposed to contribute to growth

need satisfaction. Participation in a Quality Circle provides op-

portunities to learn and use new skills, make presentations to

company management, and see one's ideas used; all of which

are claimed by QC proponents to satisfy the esteem and related

growth needs. Wong (1979) has shown that successful problem

solving, in itself, can contribute to the satisfaction of growth

needs.

Finally, QC proponents claim that participation in the tech-

nique improves levels of employee productivity and attendance.

The research literature on the behavioral outcomes of employee

participation programs is somewhat limited relative to attitudinal

research. One study, of a program of weekly meetings of super-

visors and workers in a unionized foundry to discuss means of

improving productivity, showed that higher levels of employee

participation were related to increases in a productivity index

incorporating such variables as scrap rate and production output

(Rosenberg & Rosenstein, 1980). Other studies—of job design

and sociotechnical manipulations rather than of employee par-

ticipation programs per se—indicate that the changes in work

life provided by Quality Circle participation are associated with

improvements in employee production and quality rates (Conant

&Kilbridge, 1965; Stewart (cited in Friedlander& Brown, 1971))

and reductions in absenteeism (Hackman & Lawler, 1971).

More central to the QC technique, the activities of identifying

relevant problems and attending to their solution in a systematic

and ongoing way through formal participative activity methods

are suggested as the optimal means for improving employee pro-

ductivity (Athos & Coffey, 1975). Emery and Thorsrud (1969)

suggest that the optimal organizational setting for effective em-

ployee participation in problem solving is the day-to-day work

level, where there are minimal hierarchical disparities between

the participants. This implies that employee behavior is affected

by the social interaction of the participants, a concept integral

to the Quality Circle design.

The claims by QC proponents and findings from organizational

behavior knowledge suggest four research questions to guide an

investigation of the impact of QC participation on employee

quality of work life and behavior:

1. Do Quality Circles achieve their stated objectives of in-

creasing communication and participation opportunities?

2. Does participation in a Quality Circle influence perceived

job characteristics?

3. Does participation in a Quality Circle contribute to growth

need satisfaction?

4. Does participation in a Quality Circle influence employee

productivity and absenteeism rates?

The research presented here is a quasi-experimental field study

that compares changes in perceptions of quality of work and in

productivity and attendance behaviors for participants and non-

participants in a QC program.

Method

Setting

This research was conducted in the manufacturing department of one

division of a decentralized multidivisional corporation. The plant was

located in an urban area in the eastern United States and was nonunion-

ized. Production operations were primarily assembly, with a batch process

used.

In an effort to improve productivity and control costs and simulta-

neously increase decision making opportunities for production employees,

the division management decided to implement a Quality Circle program.

A consulting group, with considerable experience in designing such pro-

grams, was invited to implement a standard QC program. Employees

eligible to volunteer for the program were machine operators. Fifty-three

of the 109 eligible employees chose to participate in the program. All

employees who so desired were trained and placed into Quality Circles.

Six QC groups were established, ranging in size from eight to nine mem-

bers.

The QC program was conducted in a manner typical of the technique.

Circles met 1 hr per week to analyze work problems. Nominal groups,

brainstorming, cause-effect analysis, and fishbone problem-analysis flow

charts all were used by Circle members. No extrinsic rewards were offered

for circle participants or for successful innovations eminating from the

Circles. As with most QC efforts, one incentive of significance for QC

participants was the opportunity to make presentations to plant man-

agement.

Measures

To assess the impact of participation in a Quality Circle on employee

perceptions of quality of work life and on productivity and attendance

behaviors, questionnaire and archival data sources were used.

Questionnaire. As part of a separate, company-wide program to assess

quality of work life in the firm, employee attitude surveys were conducted

at the research site approximately every 2 years. A questionnaire was

designed to tap a wide range of quality of work life facets, with measures

derived from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Package (com-

ponent items and reliability indexes reported in Mirvis & Lawler, 1984

and Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, & Cammann, 1983).

The survey measurement and QC program were distinct activities at

the research site. The timing of the questionnaire administration, though,

was fortuitous for this study: one survey was conducted at the research

site just prior to the implementation of the Quality Circle program and

a second survey was conducted 20 months after the QC program had

begun. Conversely, the questionnaire had been designed without any in-

tention of assessing the impact of participation in the QC program. Given

the breadth of the QWL questionnaire, however, several scales which

related to the QC program were available for analysis.

Included in the questionnaire were measures of each of the quality of

work life areas covered in the research questins for this study. Measures

of participation and communication available from the questionnaire

were a self-report of the frequency with which suggestions are offered at

work, an item assessing satisfaction with opportunities to take part in

decisions, and scales of work group communication (sample item: "In

my work group everyone's opinion gets listened to") and organizational

communication ("Communication in this organization is really good").

Measures of perceived job characteristics included meaningfulness of work

("The work I do on my job is meaningful to me"), job challenge ("My

job is very challenging"), and job responsibility ("I feel personally re-

sponsible for the work I do on my job"). Measures of growth need sat-

isfaction from the questionnaire included scales assessing opportunities

for accomplishment ("How satisfied are you with the chances you have

to accomplish something worthwhile on your job?') and for advancement

("How satisfied are you with your chances for getting a promotion?").

QUALITY CIRCLES, QUALITY OF WORK LIFE, AND PRODUCTIVITY 63

Table 1

Interconelalions of Dependent Attitudinal Variables

Variable

Communication/participation1 . Suggestions offered2. Participation in decision making3. Work group communication4. Organization communication

Job characteristics5. Meaning

6. Challenge7. Personal responsibility

Growth needs8. Accomplishment

9. Advancement

.20

.08

.04

.04

.18

.15

.02-.07

.66"

.56"

.21

.26'

.05

.71**

.68**

.46"

.17

.25*-.04

.44**

.55"

.20

.15

.25*

.56"

.49"

.63"

.47" .32"

.42" .54** .29*

.53" .59" .22* .82*

*p< .05.

Response scales ranged from one (low) to seven (high) for all measures

except the report of suggestions offered, which ranged from one (low) to

four (high).

Organizational records. Employee productivity and attendance

changes related to the QC program were measured by collecting and

analyzing relevant organizational records. Productivity change is defined

here as the more effective use of existing productivity capacity and does

not include increases resulting from changes in production technology

(Rosenberg & Rosenstein, 1980; Stogdill, 1959). Three productivity

measures were available from organizational records: percentage of hours

spent on production (actual number of hours spent on production divided

by total number of available hours), efficiency rate (number of products

produced within quality specifications divided by Industrial Engineering

output rate), and overall productivity (total hours earned (number of

actual pieces of product produced divided by number of pieces of product

expected to be produced] divided by total hours paid). Additionally, rec-

ords of employee absenteeism were collected and a rate (number of days

per month absent) was computed.

Table 2

Mean Differences Between Time 1 and Time 2 Quality-qf- Work-Life Scores

Time 1 Time 2

Quality-of-work-life measure M SD M

* p< .05. " p< .01.

SD T statistic

Suggestions offeredParticipantsNon participants

Participation in decision makingParticipantsNonparticipants

Work group communicationParticipantsNonparticipants

Organization communicationParticipants

NonparticipantsMeaning

ParticipantsNonparticipants

ChallengeParticipantsNonparticipants

Personal ResponsibilityParticipants

NonparticipantsAccomplishment

Participants

NonparticipantsAdvancement

ParticipantsNonparticipants

2.722.41

4.714.89

4.955.12

3.314.22

6.095.58

5.034.83

6.426.21

5.325.21

4.665.08

1.111.12

1.641.42

1.231.48

1.691.93

.971.59

1.79

1.83

.56

.74

1.611.40

1.711.57

3.442.86

4.793.71

4.94

4.35

3.463.35

6.215.42

5.214.52

6.506.27

5.334.61

4.553.75

.84

.95

1.74

1.68

1.241.24

1.961.76

.911.61

1.641.60

.62

.80

1.071.31

1.571.57

4.24"2.55*

.27-2.74"

-.04-2.50*

.40-2.41*

1.07

-.62

.72-.78

1.00.57

.07-2.07*

-.54

-3.18**

64 M. MARKS, P. MIRVIS, E. HACKETT, AND J. GRADY

Table 3

Multiple Regression Analysis of the Relation Between Participation In Quality Circles and Perceptions of Quality of Work Life

Independent variable

Dependent variables

Suggestions offeredParticipation in decision makingWork group communicationOrganization communicationMeaningChallengePersonal responsibilityAccomplishmentAdvancement

Dependentvariable

at Time 1

r

.3352

.0224

.1139

.1219

.4341

.1998

.4511

.2419

.2083

With participation added

r

.3894

.1211

.17811358.4631.2352.4544.3187.3040

ff

.441.21.65.45.46.61.08.68

1.00

/

5.15*6.63*4.53*1.013.352.73

.396.31*7.28**

*p<.05. " p< .01.

Data for each of the performance measures were collected for a 30-month period, ranging from 6 months prior to the implementation ofthe QC program to 24 months after the program's inception. This lengthof measurement provided sufficient time for QC participants to learn,

implement, and assess QC activities. Average rates then were computedfor 6-month intervals and compared between participants and nonpar-ticipant groups. Time I represents the average rate for the 6 months prior

to QC implementation, Time 2 the average rate for the first 6 months ofQC operation, Time 3 the average rate for months 7-12, Time 4 theaverage rate for months 13-18, and Time 5 the average for months

19-24.Subjects. For the purpose of this study, survey results and archival

data were analyzed only for direct labor production employees in thedivision—the group of employees eligible for the QC program. Complete

95 2-T

90 X-

85 *-

NON-PARTICIPANTS

PARTICIPANTS

80 %-

75 %•UK 1 TIME 2 TIHE3 TIME 4 TIHE 5

Figure L Percentage of total hours per month spent on productionfor participants and nonparticipants in QC program.

QUALITY CIRCLES, QUALITY OF WORK LIFE, AND PRODUCTIVITY 65

information was available from both surveys for 46 of the 53 voluntary

participants in the QC program and 46 of the 56 employees who chosenot to volunteer for the program (the comparison group for this study).

Although group "assignment" was purely on a voluntary basis, theparticipant and comparison groups were comparable on most regards.

The participant group was 80% female, with a mean age of 44 years(SD = 11.5) and a mean tenure of 6 years (SD = 3.8). The comparisongroup was 85% female, with a mean age of 40 years (SD = 12.2) and amean tenure of 5 years (SD = 3.2). A proportionally smaller number of

minority employees participated in the QC program. Minority groupmembers comprised 13% of the participant group and 39% of the com-parison group.

Analysis Plan for Survey Data

The influence of participation in the QC program on quality of worklife perceptions was examined through use of multiple regression analysis.

Dependent variables in use here were the quality of work life measuresfrom the Time 2 survey. The first independent variable entered into eachregression equation ws the score of the dependent variable measured atTime 1, prior to implementation of the QC program. A dummy codedvariable distinguishing QC participants from nonparticipants was enterednext. By entering the Time 1 score of the dependent measure first, theinfluence of a respondent's pre-program score was removed from the

post-program score. Thus, as the participation variable was entered intothe equation, its partial correlation would reflect its relation with thedeviation or change from the first survey measurement (Cohen & Cohen,

1975; Reichardt, 1979). F scores were calculated and tested to determineif participation made a significant increase in resulting r squares for thequality of work life measures and, consequently, had a significant relationwith changes in perceptions of quality of work life from before to afterinvolvement in the QC program.

Results

Quality of Work Life Perceptions

Intercorrelations among the dependent variables are presented

in Table 1. Although significant Intel-correlations exist between

several pairs of dependent variables, it is important to note that

relations among variables within work life facets (i.e., commu-

nication and participation, job characteristics, and growth needs)

tend to be stronger than across work life facets.

Before examining the results of the multiple regression analysis,

it is important to consider the mean scores of the quality of work

life measures for participants and nonparticipants before and

after implementation of the QC program (see Table 2). Partici-

pants reported significant increases in suggestions offered from

before to after the QC program, but not in any other work-life

area. Note that participants registered high pre-program scores

in feelings of work meaningfulnes and personal responsibility.

This suggests the potential for statistical regression in the second

95 X-,

NON-PARTICIPANTS

• • •• PARTICIPANTS

90 X-

•• •• •• ••

85 %-

80 t-

75 *

TIME 1I

TINE 2 TIME 3 TIME TIME 5

Figure 2. Efficiency rates for participants and nonparticipants in QC program (number of products produced

within quality specifications divided by Industrial Engineering output rate).

66 M. MARKS, P. MIRVIS, E. HACKETT, AND J. GRADY

wave of data collection, an effect accommodated by the choice

of multiple regression analysis.

Nonparticipants also reported a significant increase in fre-

quency with which suggestions were offered from before to after

implementation of the QC program, yet indicated less satisfaction

with opportunities to take part in the decision making process

at work. One possible explanation for this is that after the program

ws in place, ideas and suggestions were tossed around on an

informal basis by employees outside QC sessions as well as within

meetings. The norms developed in the QC groups influenced

work life outside the Circles and may have contaminated the

comparison group. The full set of results presented in Table 2,

especially the finding that nonparticipants became less satisfied

with perceived opportunities to influence decision making, sug-

gest, however, that any such contamination was quite limited.

Nonparticipants' perceptions of communication in their work

groups and throughout the organization and of satisfaction with

opportunities for accomplishment and advancement also de-

creased significantly.

With this understanding of the mean survey results for the

two groups before and after implementation of the program, the

relation between participation in Quality Circles and changes in

perceived quality of work life can be examined through multiple

regression analysis.1 With the hierarchical strategy used, resulting

F scores represent the increase in variance accounted for by the

addition of the participation variable. The results, presented in

Table 3, show that involvement in a QC program had a significant

relation to only some of the quality of work life areas claimed

by Quality Circle proponents to be influenced by participation

in the technique. In each case, however, the standardized regres-

sion coefficients (B scores) indicated a positive relation between

the decision to participate and changes in quality of work life

perceptions—those employees who participated in the QC pro-

gram tended to report more positive or less negative changes in

quality of work life perceptions than did nonparticipants.

Question 1. Participation and communication. Involvement

in the QC program was positively related to perceived changes

in opportunities for participation at work. Though both groups

reported offering suggestions more frequently after the QC pro-

gram was implemented, the increase was significantly higher for

employees participating in the QC program. Participation in the

program also was positively related to changes in satisfaction

with opportunities to take part in decision making. However,

participants did not report greater opportunity to participate in

decision making after the QC program was implemented. Rather,

nonparticipants found less opportunity to participate in decisionmaking after the program was in place.

Participation in the QC program was related to changes in

how communication was regarded in work groups, but no dis-

tinction between participants and nonparticipants was found re-

garding communication throughout the organization. Employees

involved in the Quality Circle program found no change in the

communication in their work groups, but nonparticipants felt

the quality of communication within their work groups decreased

between the two survey administrations.

Question 2. Job characteristics. Participation in the QC pro-

gram was not related to changes in perceived job characteristics

or resulting psychological states relevant to job design. No sig-

nificant differences were found between participants and non-

participants in the degree to which jobs were regarded as mean-

ingful or challenging or in taking a personal responsibility for

work performed.

Question 3. Growth needs. Significant differences were found

between participants and nonparticipants in perceived oppor-

tunities for accomplishment and self-development. Participation

in the QC program was positively related to changes in satisfaction

with opportunities to accomplish something worthwhile at work

and to advance in the organization. On both measures, attitudinal

scores dropped from before to after implementation of the pro-

gram for nonparticipants, whereas participants experienced no

change.

Performance Measures

Figures 1 through 4 display average 6-month rates for QC

participants and nonparticipants for the performance measures

for the period spanning 6 months prior to the adoption of the

QC program to 24 months after the program began.2 For each

measure, the pre-program rates (Time 1) for the participant and

nonparticipant groups were identical or, at least, very close. As

can be seen graphically in the figures, improvements were reg-

istered in each area for QC participants. For nonparticipants,

the percentage of hours spent on production and the efficiency

rating were unchanged across the measurement period. Non-

participants recorded a slight increase in the overall productivity

measure and sporadic changes in absenteeism.

T scores were computed comparing the changes between the

Time 1 results (the average rate for the 6 months preceding the

QC program) and the time 5 results (19-24 months after the

program was introduced) for both groups. Significant differences

(p < .01) were found between participants and nonparticipants

in percentage of hours spent on production (T = —6.68), effi-

ciency (T = -7.56), and overall productivity (T = -5.39).3 No

significant difference was found between QC participants and

nonparticipants in changes in absenteeism rate from Time 1 to

Time 5(7"= 1.01). Figure 4, however, shows a sporadic rise and

fall in the absenteeism rate for nonparticipants over the mea-

surement period compared to a relatively consistent downward

trend for the participant group. The nonparticipant absenteeism

rate at Time 5 may represent an uncharacteristic level and not

provide a fair comparison with the participant group rate at

Time 5.

Discussion

The areas where Quality Circle participation was significantly

related to changes in employees' perceptions of quality of work

life can be distinguished from those areas not influenced by the

program. Quality Circle participation had some influence on

employee attitudes in work life areas proximal to the technique'sfunctioning: participation, decision making, group communi-

cation, accomplishing something worthwhile, and enhancing op-

portunities and skills needed for advancement in the organization.

1 Analysis of covariance also was conducted, yielding identical results.2 No significant intercorrelations existed among any of the performance

measures.3 A negative T score indicates a greater increase in a rate for the par-

ticipant group from Time 1 to Time 5.

QUALITY CIRCLES, QUALITY OF WORK LIFE, AND PRODUCTIVITY 67

Yet no effect was observed in communication through the total

organization, job meaningfulness and challenge, or personal re-

sponsibility for work. These quality of work life areas were rel-

atively removed from core Quality Circle activities. It would ap-

pear, then, that the relation between Quality Circle participation

and employee perceptions of quality of work life is limited to

those QWL areas specifically involved as QC functions are being

carried out, yet does not carry over to influence more general

feelings of quality of work life.

Caution, though, must be taken in interpreting the results of

this study. With the exception of reported frequency of sugges-

tions offered, participants in the QC program did not show any

significant change from pre to post measures of quality-of-work-

life attitudes, whereas nonparticipants exhibited lower scores on

many of the measures. It is possible that factors other than QC

participation—both individual difference variables and organi-

zational variables—may have been responsible for the attitudinal

results obtained.

One organizational factor that may have influenced these re-

sults was a major restructuring of the company's divisions that

occurred between the two survey measures. In this restructuring,

the studied division was merged with a much larger division in

the firm. Interviews with key organizational members indicated

that the restructuring took most employees by surprise and that

both management and workers in the division felt that the reasons

for and possible ramifications of the change had not been fully

communicated. Although there had been no direct impact on

the division workforce as a result of the restructuring, substantial

indirect effects on employees were reported. The restructuring

posed a threat to many employees' plans or hopes for advance-

ment in the organization and restricted feelings of job satisfaction

or of accomplishing something worthwhile at work. The failure

to forewarn or discuss with workers about the restructuring, in

contrast with previous organizational norms of providing full

and early communication regarding such changes, directly con-

fronted how employees regarded communication in the company.

As Marks and Mirvis (1983) have shown in the case of interor-

ganizational merger, such indirect effects can have a profound

impact on employees' quality-of-work-life perceptions.

Another contextual factor suggested by organizational leaders

to explain the drop in quality-of-work-life scores from the pre

to post measures was a poor economy. During the time between

the two survey administrations, the local economy in the area

surrounding the studied division was beset by high inflation and

unemployment. Blue-collar workers were hit hardest by the poor

economic conditions, which arguably could have depressed at-

titudes about work and life in general.

Still, quality-of-work-life scores decreased significantly in some

areas only for nonparticipants. Can the observed decreases be

attributed to a lack of participation in the QC program? It is

75 % -,

70 1-

-*- NON-PARTICIPANTS

PARTICIPANTS

65 %-

60 %-

55 % I

TINE 1

ITINE 2

ITIME 3

ITIME

ITIME

figure 3. Productivity rates for participants and nonparticipants in Quality Circle program (total hours

earned [number of actual pieces of product produced divided by number of pieces of product expected to

be produced] divided by total hours paid).

68 M. MARKS, P. MIRVIS, E. HACKETT, AND J. GRADY

doubtful that not being involved in the QC program was directly

related to lowered perceptions of quality of work life, yet an

indirect relation may have existed. The uncertainty and upset

generated from the divisional restructuring and the pains of eco-

nomic hardship left little room for optimistic or cheerful attitudes.

Quality Circle participants were exposed to the same changes in

organization structure and economic situation as were nonpar-

ticipants but did not suffer significant drops in quality of work

life attitudes. An indirect asset of membership in a Quality Circle

may have been that the QC groups were sources of both infor-

mational and emotional social support (House, 1981; Kahn &

Antonucci, 1980) which buffered members from negative atti-

tudinal responses to potentially stress-inducing changes at work.

Quality Circles provided a forum in which employees could re-

ceive clarification from supervisors and distinguish facts from

rumors regarding the restructuring, and commiserate with peers

about economic hardship and real or perceived loss of oppor-

tunities due to the restructuring.

The performance measures clearly indicate a positive impact

of participation in the Quality Circle program on employee pro-

ductivity. Participants in the QC program tended to increase the

percentage of their time spent on actual production and produced

a higher rate of products within Industrial Engineering specifi-

cations. These changes can, at least in part, be attributable to

the Quality Circle process. Prior to the QC program, for example,

machine operators would wait for a set-up person to make a

needed adjustment in a machine or other equipment. From QC

discussions, some employees learned how to make the adjust-

ments on their own, lowering the delay wait and increasing the

percentage of time spent on actual production. Although the

overall productivity rate increased substantially for QC partici-

pants, only a slight increase was found in the nonparticipant

group. This may be a contamination effect, as production changes

developed in Quality Circles were implemented throughout the

production department.

Finally, absenteeism rates dropped consistently for QC par-

ticipants and sporadically for nonparticipants. This may be at-

tributable, in part, to the tough economic times. People who had

jobs may have increased their attendance at work in an effort to

help insure keeping those jobs. Nonetheless, the absenteeism rates

prior to the QC intervention for the participant and nonparti-

cipant groups had been identical for the 6 months prior to the

program start-up. This suggests that QC participation favorably

influenced employee attendance.

SO-i

•h.—s-rrrr̂ x

•

.-*"• NON-PARTICIPANTS

"•" PARTICIPANTS

30-I

TINE 1

I

TINE 2 TIME 3

I

TINE 4

I

TIME 5

(Six-month Intervals)

Figure 4. Number of days absent per month for participants and nonparticipants in QC program.

QUALITY CIRCLES, QUALITY OF WORK. LIFE, AND PRODUCTIVITY 69

Conclusion

The attitudinal results presented here provide, at best, cir-

cumspect support for the claims of Quality Control proponents

that the technique improves participants' quality of work life.

In this particular case, participation in a Quality Circle appears

to have done more to provide informational and emotional social

support to buffer against potential threats to work life quality

than to directly enhance employees' perceptions of their jobs

and work situations. The performance results, however, document

a positive and substantial impact of QC participation on employee

productivity and attendance.

To be fair, this research evaluated one Quality Circle inter-

vention. A major change occurred in the organization soon after

the QC program was implemented and poor economic times

were at hand, both of which may have influenced survey results.

However, change and the economy are facts of organizational

life—an intervention which must rely on an internal or external

environment free of change to produce expected results is of

little value to an organization. Though this was a study of a

single intervention, the Quality Circle program was implemented

and monitored by a consulting group with substantial experience

in QC programs. The program under study can be considered

to be representative of other QC interventions.

Considerably more research on the impact of the Quality Circle

phenomenon is needed. Broader measurement of the quality of

work life facets and performance outcomes claimed to be influ-

enced by the QC technique should be conducted. Certainly, the

human results—both attitudinal and behavioral—of Quality

Circle participation should be investigated more fully across var-

ious applications and organizational contexts. The findings will

tell us not only of the efficacy of the Quality Circle technique

but also will add insight to current knowledge regarding the in-

fluence of employee participation interventions in general on

quality of work life, productivity, and absenteeism.

References

Athos, A. J., & Coffey, R. E. (1975). Behavior in organizations: A multi-

dimensional view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barra, R. J. (1983). Putting quality circles to work. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Beardsley, J. E, & Dewar, D. C. (1977). Quality circles. San Jose: J. F.

Beardsley & Associates.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cole, R. E. (1980). Work, mobility, and participation: A comparative

study of American and Japanese industry. Berkeley: University of Cal-

ifornia Press.

Conant, E. H., & Kilbridge, M. D. (1965). An interdisciplinary analysis

of job enlargement: Technology, costs and behavioral implications. In-

dustrial and Labor Relations Review, IS, 377-395.

Emery, F. E., & Thorsrud, E. (1969). Form and content in industrial

democracy. London: Tavistock Publications.

Friedlander, F., & Brown, L. D. (1971). Organization Development. An-

nual Review of Psychology, 22, 315-341.

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reaction to job char-

acteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259-286.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Ad-

dison-Wesley.

Kahn, R. L., & Antonucci, T. (1980). Convoys over the life course: At-

tachment, roles, and social support. In P. B. Baltes & O'Brim (Eds.),

Lifespan Development and Behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 253-286). Boston:

Lexington Press, 1980.

Lawler, E. E. (1975). Measuring the psychological quality of working life.

In L. Davis & A. Cherns (Eds.), The quality of work life (Vol. I, pp.

123-133). New York: Free Press.

Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M.( 1979). Participation in decision-making:

One more look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational be-

havior (Vol. 1, pp. 265-339). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Maier, N. R. F. (1967). Assets and liabilities in group problem solving:

The need for an integrative function. Psychological Review, 74, 239-

249.

Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1983). Personal and situational factors

influencing employee response to corporate merger. Paper presented at

the 91st annual convention of the American Psychological Association,

Anaheim, CA.

Mirvis, P. H., & Lawler, E. E. (1984). Accounting for the Quality of Work

Lite. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 5, 197-212.

O'Toole, James (1977). Work, learning, and the American future. San

Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Reichardt, C. S. (!979).The statistical analysis of nonequivalent control

group designs. In T. Cook & D. T. Campbell (Eds.), Quasi-Experi-

mentation (pp. 147-206). Chicago: Rand-McNalley.

Rosenberg, R. D., & Rosenstein, E. (1980). Participation and productivity:

An empirical study. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 33, 355-

367.

Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E. Mirivs, P. H., & Cammann, C. (1983).

Assessing organizational change: A guide to practice. New Ybrk: Wiley

mterecience.

Stogdill, R. M. (1959). Industrial behavior and group achievement: A

theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Swartz, G. E., & Comstock, V. C. (1979). One firm's experience with

quality circles. Quality Progress, 12, 14-16.

Wong, P. T. P. (1979). Frustration, exploration, and learning. Canadian

Psychological Review: 20, 133-144.

Yeager, E. (1979). Examining the quality control circle. Personnel Journal,

58, 682-708.

Received November 26, 1984

Revision received March 11, 1985 •