10_Beatty* 13/11/05 9:52 pm Page 139

Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, 2006 139

The quality journey: historical and workforce

perspectives and the assessment of commitment
to quality

James R. Beatty
Department of Information and Decision Systems,
College of Business Administration, 5500 Campanile Drive,
San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-8234, USA
Fax: 619-594-3675 E-mail: jbeatty@mail.sdsu.edu

Abstract: This article reviews the international quality movement from

historical and workforce perspectives. The impact of the USA, Japan, the
European Community, and other regions is discussed, along with the Baldrige
National Quality Program, the Deming Prize, ISO, TQM, and other such
programmes. Organisational and individual commitment to quality are
emphasised, as well as the importance of measuring such commitment to
quality and establishing commitment to quality baselines and benchmarks at
the early stages of implementing quality programmes. A highly reliable, valid
instrument for measuring commitment to quality is then presented and made
available to organisations for baseline and comparison purposes.

Keywords: Baldrige; Baldrige Criteria Questionnaire (BCQ); commitment

to quality questionnaire (CQQ); Deming prize; factor analysis; individual
commitment to quality; ISO; item analysis; organisational commitment to
quality; TQM.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Beatty, J.R. (2006) ‘The
quality journey: historical and workforce perspectives and the assessment of
commitment to quality’, Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 1,
Nos. 1/2, pp.139–167.

Biographical notes: James Beatty is Professor of Information and Decision

Systems, Adjunct Professor of Management, and Coordinator of Statistics,
where he helped found the Institute for Quality and Productivity, has been
recognised as the Professor of the Year, the Alumni’s Outstanding Professor,
and Outstanding Executive MBA Professor. Jim has been selected to the
National Board of Examiners for the Baldrige National Quality Program eight
times, has served as a Judge for the President’s Quality Award, has been a
Judge numerous times for the California Quality Awards programme, and is the
author of the Baldrige Examiner Scoring Software for the State of California.

1 Introduction

Total quality management (TQM), statistical process control (SPC), continuous process
improvement (CPI), lean manufacturing, the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), the Deming Prize, and Six Sigma have become key business concepts or phrases
for the quality movement. Issues related to quality, productivity, service, and the USA’s

Copyright © 2006 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 140

140 J.R. Beatty

ability to remain competitive drew the attention of the media as well as the USA’s
workforce during the latter part of the 20th century. Documentaries such as NBC’s 1980
White Papers (‘If Japan can why can’t we?’), ABC’s 1991 Nightline (‘The US Automobile
Industry’), and PBS’s 1991–1993, 1996, business series on quality (‘Quality . . . or else’)
brought quality issues into US households. In fact, the entire October 25, 1991, issue of
Business Week (‘The quality imperative’, October 25, 1991) was devoted to quality.
This quality movement has been international. It has been strongly influenced by the
USA, Japan, the European Community, China, and other countries or groups striving to
remain competitive or are emerging as significant players in the international arena. The
USA, Japan, and the European Community in particular have had considerable impact on
the development of tools and philosophy now viewed as foundations for quality. Early
pioneers such as Walter Shewhart, Joseph Juran, Deming, and others provided the USA
with a strong heritage of scientific research, technology, and philosophy regarding
approaches to quality. Unfortunately, many of these concepts were often ignored by US
industry, did not become a way of life in corporate America, and were not given the same
priorities that Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and boards of directors gave to mobility
of management, quarterly dividends, visible figures, and other ‘deadly diseases’ to business
success (Deming, 1982, Chap. 3). During much of the 20th century, the USA controlled
major portions of many markets. According to Deming,
“ in the year 1910, the United States made half the manufactured products of the
world.” (1993, p.3).
By the 1950s, international competition had become limited as a result of the defeat of
Japan, Germany, and certain other industrial powers in World War II. US products
dominated world markets, and the USA was able to sell almost everything it built.
However, during the latter half of the century, numerous US companies lost focus of their
commitment to quality and to their customers.
By the end of the 1960s, the US automotive industry was losing market shares to other
countries. Japan, Germany, other Pacific Rim countries, and the European Community
began to make rapid advances in electronics, telecommunications, and technology
industries. According to Sasaki and Hutchins (1984), prior to the revitalisation of the
quality movement in the USA, Japan made strides by combining quality with productivity
while the USA was sacrificing quality for productivity. As Townsend and Gebhardt
recently stated,
“ today’s business climate is impacted by forces unimaginable even 50 years ago.”
(2005, p.30).

2 Achieving quality

The quality movement of the past 20 years has stressed a systematic approach to improving
quality and productivity within the work force. Such quality-oriented philosophies have
emphasised continuous improvement, a do-it-right-the-first-time mentality, minimising
scrap, rework, and defects, and a balance between time, money, and quality. Yet these
philosophies do not simply emphasise the quality of the product as it goes out the door;
they stress the importance of quality in all processes related to productivity, including
human resources and other functional areas within the organisation (Beatty, 2000, Chap.
1). Adherence to such approaches requires a top-down, bottom-up orientation requiring
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 141

The quality journey 141

personal commitment, support, and participation on the part of the CEO, the
management team, and the workforce. It also requires input and participation from
technical professionals, semi-skilled workers, shop floor workers, and all other
employees, building on their knowledge and skills. Successful quality approaches stress
the importance of a clear vision and a well defined philosophy, as well as providing
training and education in problem-solving, teamwork, SPC, and human resources
management across all functional areas within the business enterprise. The fostering of
an attitude of working together among internal customers, external customers, suppliers,
and all other business partners is essential to this philosophy. The cooperation of
international business partners is equally important, since many, if not most, manufactured
products and parts are designed, made, assembled, warehoused, and shipped by business
partners throughout the world! Yet, many organisations were not and may still not be
ready for this new philosophy and these new approaches.

3 Deming, Japan, and the Deming Prize

In 1950, the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) invited Dr. W. Edwards
Deming to Japan to teach statistical quality control. While only moderate attention was
paid to his philosophy toward quality in the USA, his lectures were widely accepted in
Japan. As Deming and Juran, who also was invited to Japan in the same year, helped
advance Japanese quality concepts in the early 1950s, the Japanese industrialists paid
attention, were patient, learned the new concepts, further advanced their own approaches,
emphasised long-range plans, became highly successful, and arose as a major competitor
for consumer markets. Deming so strongly influenced the future of quality and
productivity in that country that he has received credit for significantly advancing Japan’s
post-war success. In fact, in 1951 the JUSE established the Deming Prize to commemorate
Dr. Deming’s achievements and his friendship to Japan as well as to further promote
quality in that country. The Deming prize has often been referred to as Japan’s most
distinguished industrial honour. It is highly pursued, difficult to win, and widely recognised.
The Deming Prize is awarded to individuals for achievement, and the Deming Application
Prize is awarded to companies for their achievement (Beatty, 2000, Chap. 1, pp.9–12).
While Deming’s early theories were published in Statistical Adjustment of Data (1938;
1943) and in numerous publications throughout the 1950s–1970s, once he published
Out of the Crisis (1982; 1986), his name became synonymous with quality. Out of the
Crisis quickly became a classic in the world of quality, with copies appearing on most
all bookshelves of manufacturing organisations throughout the world. The core of his
philosophy was based on:
• his principles for transformation of Western management, or what are now widely
recognised as Deming’s Fourteen Points
• the five Deadly Diseases that stand in the way of this transformation 1.
His final formal contribution to the quality and productivity movement was his last book,
The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, published just prior to his
death in December 1993. In this book, he emphasised that a philosophy of quality
management must embrace the Four Components of Profound Knowledge. These four
components include:
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 142

142 J.R. Beatty

• the appreciation for a system

• knowledge about variation
• the development of a theory of knowledge
• the comprehension of psychology (Deming, 1993, Chap. 4).
One interpretation of his approach is that quality improvement should be based on an
understanding of the processes, stages, and components that interact to make a product;
an awareness of the values, beliefs, and goals of the organisation as set forth by top
management; the knowledge that systems consist of individuals, not just materials,
equipment, and charts; the understanding that all systems contain variation and that this
variation can be better understood through exploratory data analysis and statistical theory;
an appreciation for the fact that there is also variation among people; the recognition that
systems influence individual performance, just as individual performance can influence
systems; an understanding of psychology, human behaviour, communication, and intrinsic
rewards; and the development of a theory of knowledge that allows for interpretation and
the ability to predict.
Of course, Deming and Juran were not the only ones to influence Japan’s success in
quality. Genichi Taguchi, Kaoru Ishikawa, Eiji Toyoda, Shigeo Shingo, and others were
also advancing concepts, putting pressure on, and in some cases surpassing the USA in
creative approaches to improve quality in manufacturing.

4 The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)

The work of the ISO, with guidelines published in 1987 as a series of quality management
and assurance standards referred to as ISO 9000, has also had a strong impact on interest
in TQM and SPC. It has a rich heritage, dating back to the work of the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), which was established in 1906. It also has roots to
the International Federation of the National Standardizing Associations (ISA), established
in 1926. However, after the conclusion of World War II, representatives from a number
of countries met in London, England, to modernise Europe’s approach to quality issues.
The outgrowth of that conference was the creation of a new international organisation,
ISO, “to facilitate the international coordination and unification of industrial standards”.
Currently, the ISO consists of a network of standards institutes from 151 countries. The
agency is non-governmental and attempts to bridge the public and private sectors.
The two most widely recognised ISO efforts to date include ISO 9000 and ISO
14000. ISO 9000 focuses on quality requirements for business, while ISO 14000 focuses
on achievement and assisting organisations to address environmental challenges.
According to the 2005 ISO website (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/
index.html):
“ The vast majority of ISO standards are highly specific to a particular product,
material, or process. However, the standards that have earned the ISO 9000 and
ISO 14000 families a worldwide reputation are known as ‘generic management
system standards’. ‘Generic’ means that the same standards can be applied to any
organization, large or small, whatever its product – including whether its ‘product’
is actually a service – in any sector of activity, and whether it is a business
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 143

The quality journey 143

enterprise, a public administration, or a government department. ‘Management

system’ refers to what the organisation does to manage its processes, or activities.
‘Generic’ also signifies that no matter what the organization is or does, if it wants
to establish a quality management system or an environmental management
system, then such a system has a number of essential features which are spelled
out in the relevant standards of the ISO 9000 or ISO 14000 families.
ISO 9000 is concerned with ‘quality management’. This means what the
organisation does to enhance customer satisfaction by meeting customer and
applicable regulatory requirements and continually to improve its performance in
this regard. ISO 14000 is primarily concerned with ‘environmental management’.
This means what the organisation does to minimise harmful effects on the
environment caused by its activities, and continually to improve its environmental
performance.”
The European Community (EC), including countries such as Belgium, Denmark, France,
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the
United Kingdom, expects their suppliers to be ISO certified (Profile of ISO 9000, 1992).
Companies use the standards to help determine what is needed to maintain an efficient
quality conformance system and to register such systems. For example, the standards
describe the need for an effective quality system, for ensuring that measuring and testing
equipment is calibrated regularly, and for maintaining an adequate record-keeping
system. ISO 9000 registration determines whether a company complies with its own
quality system. Products related to consumer health, safety, and well-being are regulated;
and suppliers of these products must be certified through a recognised accreditation
programme in the standards of ISO 9000. European countries affiliated with the European
Free Trade Association (EFTA), Pan-Pacific countries, and other countries have also
adopted the standards of ISO. Even the US Department of Defense and a number of
public and private US companies have adopted these standards.
As stated in the Profile of ISO 9000 (1992, p.11):
“ [ISO] 9000 is not] just a key to competitiveness: [it is] also a tool for
improvement. In fact, those companies that implement ISO 9000 [and other
related programs] with purely market-driven motives will not reap the full benefit
the standards have to offer: namely, helping to lay the foundation for world class
quality.” (Profile of ISO 9000, 1992, p.11).

5 The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award

While Japan had the Deming Prize to recognise quality efforts, for many years the
USA did not have an equivalent, widely recognised award programme. To address this
shortcoming, the US Congress passed Public Law 100–107, the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Improvement Act of 1987, to create a programme for addressing quality
in the USA. The Act was named in honour of Malcolm Baldrige (1922-1987), the 26th
United States Secretary of Commerce, who served during the Reagan administration
from 1981 until his death in 1987. Baldrige was “a proponent of quality management as
a key to U.S. prosperity and long-term strength.” (Baldrige National Quality Program,
2004a). Long before he became interested in business and politics, “Mac” Baldrige
worked as a ranch hand in his youth, frequently participated in rodeos, and became a
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 144

144 J.R. Beatty

champion roper. He continued these interests throughout his life, was elected to the
National Cowboy Hall of Fame in 1984, and died in a horse accident while participating
in a rodeo in California in 1987. The award was subsequently named in his honour.
Initially, the Baldrige Program limited the number of awards to no more than
six companies annually, and there could be no more than two winners in each of the
three designated business sectors: Manufacturing Companies or Subsidiaries; Service
Companies or Subsidiaries; and Small Businesses (with less than 500 employees). By
1998, two additional sectors were included in the award/assessment process: Health Care;
and Education. The number of potential winners was also expanded from two to three per
sector. In 2004, the House of Representatives and the US Senate both unanimously
passed HR 3389, establishing a not-for-profit category as well. That bill was signed into
law by President George W. Bush on October 5, 2004, establishing the sixth sector for
the programme.
From the onset of the programme’s creation until 2004, 62 organisations have been
recognised out of a total of 999 applicants. With only 6% of the applicants receiving
such recognition, the prestige of winning a Baldrige award is quite high. However, the
Baldrige philosophy is not about winning an award; instead, it is about self-assessment,
developing baselines, identifying and using benchmarks, continuously improving, and
obtaining successful results. The Baldrige Award winners from 1988 through 2004 are
included in Tables 1 and 2, aggregated by each of the award categories.
Each year, the programme reviews and establishes Performance Excellence Criteria
based on characteristics found among the most excellent performing organisations in the
world. The Criteria lay out a ‘framework’ and provide a tool to assess an organisation’s
performance and improve performance on the critical factors that drive business success.

Table 1 Baldrige winners in manufacturing, service, or small business

Manufacturing organisations Service organisations Small businesses with
or subsidiaries or subsidiaries less than 500 employees

1988 1) Motorola, Inc. None 1) Globe Metallurgical, Inc.

2) Westinghouse Electronic
1) Corporation Commercial
1) Nuclear Fuel Division
1989 1) Miliken & Company None None
2) Xerox Corporation Business
1) Products and Systems
1990 1) Cadillac Motor Car Company 1) Federal Express 1) The Wallace Company
2) IBM, Rochester Division 1) Corporation
1991 1) Solectron Corporation None 1) Marlow Industries
2) Zytec Corporation
1992 1) AT&T Network Systems 1) AT&T Universal Card 1) Granite Rock Company
1) Group Transmission 1) Services
1) Systems Business Unit
2) Texas Instruments 2) Ritz-Carlton Hotel
1) Incorporated Defense Systems 1) Company
1) and Electronics Group
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 145

The quality journey 145

Table 1 Baldrige winners in manufacturing, service, or small business (continued)

Manufacturing organisations Service organisations Small businesses with
or subsidiaries or subsidiaries less than 500 employees

1993 1) Eastman Chemical Company None 1) Ames Rubber Corporation

1994 None 1) AT&T Consumer 1) Wainwright Industries

1) Communications Services
2) GTE Directories
1) Corporation

1995 1) Armstrong World Industries’ None None

1) Building Products Operation
2) Corning Telecommunications
1) Products Division

1996 1) ADAC Laboratories 1) Dana Commercial Credit 1) Custom Research, Inc.

1) Corporation 2) Trident Precision
1) Manufacturing, Inc.

1997 1) 3M Dental Product Division 1) Merrill Lynch Credit None

1) Corporation
2) Solectron Corporation 2) Xerox Business Services

1998 1) Solar Turbines Incorporated None 1) Texas Nameplate

1) Company, Inc.
2) Boeing Airlift and tanker
1) Programs

1999 1) STMicroelectronics, Inc. 1) BI 1) Sunny Fresh Foods

1) – Region Americas
2) The Ritz-Carlton Hotel
1) Company, L.L.C.

2000 1) Dana Corporation-Spicer 1) Operations Management, 1) Los Alamos National Bank

1) Driveshaft 1) International, Inc.
2) KARLEE Company, Inc.

2001 1) Clarke American Checks, Inc. None 1) Pal’s Sudden Service

2002 1) Motorola CGISS None 1) Branch Smith Printing

1) Division

2003 1) Medrad, Inc. 1) Caterpiller Financial 1) Stoner, Inc.

1) Services Corporation – US
2) Boeing Aerospace Support

2004 1) The Bama Companies None 1) Texas Nameplate

1) Company, Inc.
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 146

146 J.R. Beatty

Table 2 Baldrige winners in health care or education

Health care Education

1998 None None

1999 None None
2000 None None
2001 None 1) Chugach School District
1) (Anchorage, Alaska)
2) Pearl River School District
1) (Pearl Rover, New York
3) University of Wisconsin-Stout
1) (Menomonie, Wisconsin)
2002 1) SSM Health Care None
2003 1) Saint Luke’s Hospital of 1) Community Consolidated School
1) Kansas City 1) District 15
2) Baptist Hospital, Inc.
2004 1) Robert Wood Johnson University 2) Kenneth W. Monfort College of
1) Hospital Hamilton 1) Business, University of Northern
1) Colorado

The Baldrige program encourages organisations to use the Criteria for self assessment,
as self-assessment helps identify strengths and prioritises improvement opportunities on
key processes. Those who have used the Baldrige Criteria in their quality efforts have
reported they are able to improve communication, make effective resource decisions, and
motivate the work force by aligning individual and organisation performance. In order to
be successful as an applicant, but more importantly to be successful as an enterprise,
there must be clearly defined approaches for all processes. Further, these approaches
must be systematic, fully deployed without significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas
or work units, and linked to one-another, to organisational goals, and to results.
These approach/deployment processes must also support the purpose, vision, mission,
core values, value discipline, and goals of the organisation. Successful applicants have
demonstrated, under the exhaustive scrutiny of a team of Baldrige Examiners and Judges,
that their approaches and processes lead to sustained results. Therefore, the results must
be fact-based, measurable, verifiable, and sustained over a significant time period, as
reflected by documented trends. Organisations must demonstrate improvements against
baselines, and achieve high marks against established benchmarks. Further, extensive
organisational learning/sharing must be key management tools of the organisation, with
emphasis on strong refinement and integration backed by excellent organisational-level
analysis and sharing. Finally, the organisation’s approach must be fully integrated with
the needs and core values of the organisation, as identified in the Baldrige Criteria.
The US Department of Commerce is responsible for overseeing the award process.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the Department
of Commerce’s Technology Administration, manages the award programme. The American
Society for Quality Control (ASQC) assists in administering the award programme under
contract to NIST. The awards are traditionally presented annually by the President of the
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 147

The quality journey 147

United States at a special ceremony in Washington, D.C. While the program is a joint
effort between the federal government and industry, approximately 90% of the funding is
provided by the private sector. As of 2005, almost all 50 states in the USA and over 100
countries have Baldrige or Baldrige-related programmes (updated from Beatty, 2000,
Chapter 1, pp.4–8).
The Baldrige award is based on points earned in seven general Categories. While the
point values of each of these Categories have varied since the onset of the programme in
1987, the programme generally has remained stable. One noticeable change is that there
is now less emphasis on the word quality and more emphasis on performance management.
For 2005, the seven Categories in the Criteria 2 were as follows:
• Leadership,
• Strategic Planning,
• Customer and Market Focus (Student, Stakeholder, and Market Focus for the
Education Criteria; and Focus on Patients, Other Customers, and Markets for the
Health Care Criteria),
• Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management,
• Human Resource Focus (Faculty and Staff Focus for the Education Criteria;
and Staff Focus for the Health Care Criteria),
• Process Management, and
• Business Results (Organisational Performance Results for the Education Criteria
and for the Health Care Criteria).
The Board of Overseers and the Board of Examiners annually review and make
recommendations for the distribution of 1000 points across these seven Categories. For
2005, the seven Categories include 19 Items to be addressed, 32 ‘Areas to Address’ within
the Items, and 80 ‘Multiple Requirements’ within the Areas to Address. The first six
Categories are evaluated in terms of approach and deployment, while the seventh
Category is evaluated in terms of results. The interrelationships of these seven Categories
are depicted in Figure 1, obtained from the 2005 Criteria for Performance Excellence
(Baldrige National Quality Program, 2005).
According to the Baldrige National Quality Program (2004 Slide Set with Speaker
Notes, May 2004):
“ Many organisations believe that the application process itself is beneficial.
Every applicant receives an extensive feedback report highlighting strengths and
opportunities for improvement, based on an independent assessment completed
by recognised experts. Organisations committed to performance improvement
have indicated that objective feedback, especially from external sources, is both
valuable and essential to their success.”
According to Earnest Deavenport, chairman and chief executive officer of Eastman
Chemical Company:
“ Eastman, like other Baldrige Award winners, didn’t apply the concepts of total
quality management to win an award. We did it to win customers. We did it to
grow. We did it to prosper and to remain competitive in a world marketplace.”
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 148

148 J.R. Beatty

Figure 1 The seven categories of the Baldrige Criteria

The Baldrige Program encourages organisations to use the Baldrige performance

excellence criteria to assess their organisation and to improve. It has found that ‘the
program has helped to stimulate an amazing movement to improve U.S. organisations,
including companies; academic institutions; and federal, state, and local government
agencies.’ (Baldrige National Quality Program, 2004d). In this same document, it was
reported that, according to a report entitled ‘Building on Baldrige: American quality for
the 21st century’, ‘More than any other program, the Baldrige Quality Award is
responsible for making quality a national priority and disseminating best practices across
the United States.’
Applicants must submit an application of up to 50 single-spaced pages that address
the Criteria. Every applicant receives a feedback report that focuses on strengths and
opportunities for improvement created by a team of professionally trained Examiners
who collectively spend at least 300 h per application, reading, scoring, and preparing
statements regarding strengths and opportunities for improvement. However, the feedback
reports are not prescriptive but are designed to provide applicants with a learning
experience from which to build for the future. Those organisations scoring in the higher
bands merit further attention. In such cases, a team of Examiners conducts a consensus
telephone call consisting of from 6 to 10 h of collective reviewing and discussion, requiring
approximately 1000–2000 additional collective hours on the part of the Examiner team.
Those organisations that score in the higher bands after the completion of the consensus
call receive site visits. Site visits usually require five days on the part of the Examiner
team, resulting in a more refined feedback report after verification of the information
provided by the applicant in the initial application and clarification of information that
may not have been initially clear. The Panel of Judges reviews all feedback reports and
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 149

The quality journey 149

eventually makes recommendations regarding award recipients. In regard to organisational

results, the highest points are awarded only if the organisation demonstrates best practices
that lead to sustained success.
The Board of Examiners consists of nationally recognised business and quality
experts. They are selected by NIST through a rigorous, competitive application process,
must participate in an extensive examiner preparation course, and must follow a stringent
code of ethics. The award recipients themselves are expected to freely share non-proprietary
information on their successful performance and quality strategies with other US
organisations. According to the Baldrige National Quality Program (2005):
“ Award recipients are required to share information on their successful
performance and quality strategies with other US organizations. However,
recipients are not required to share proprietary information, even if such
information was part of their Award application. The principal mechanism for
sharing information is The Quest for Excellence Conference held annually. Award
recipients in the 17 years of the Award have been extremely generous in their
commitment to improving US competitiveness and furthering the US pursuit
of performance excellence. They have shared information with hundreds of
thousands of companies, education organizations, health care organizations,
government agencies, and others. This sharing far exceeds expectations and
Program requirements. Award recipients’ efforts have encouraged many other
organizations in all sectors of the US economy to undertake their own performance
improvement efforts.”
Overall, ISO 9000 registration covers less than 10% of the Baldrige Award criteria.
Thus, the Baldrige approach has received increased recognition as an important tool for
self-assessment in manufacturing, the service industries, and in the military complex.
(Baldrige National Quality Program, 2004a).

6 How is quality defined?

There are many definitions for the word ‘quality’. The way we define quality usually
depends on the way we are using the word. Most modern definitions of quality emphasise
the expectations of the customer. The following definitions discussed by Beatty in
Statistical Methods, Vol. 1 (2000, Chap. 1, pp.14–15) were generated by leading sources
in the quality movement during the second half of the 20th century, including Deming,
Juran, Feigenbaum, Crosby, the American National Standards Institute/American Society
for Quality Control (ANSI/ASQC, 1987), and the Baldrige National Quality Program:
• W. Edwards Deming gave a straightforward, useful definition of quality. He stated
that ‘a product or a service possesses quality if it helps somebody and enjoys a
good and sustainable market.’ (1993, p.2) He further stated that ‘trade depends
on quality.’ (p.2).
• Joseph M. Juran gave two definitions of quality: ‘Quality consists of those product
features which meet the needs of customers and thereby provide product satisfaction,’
and ‘Quality consists of freedom from deficiencies.’ (Juran and Gryna, 1988, p.2.2)
He then provided extensive explanations for each of the key words in these
two definitions.
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 150

150 J.R. Beatty

• Armand Feigenbaum, who wrote Total Quality Control in 1951, defined quality as
‘the total composite product and service characteristics of marketing, engineering,
manufacturing and maintenance through which the product and service in use meet
the expectations of the customer’ (1983).
• Philip Crosby, in his widely read book entitled Quality without Tears: the Art of
Hassle-Free Management (1984), emphasised what he referred to as the Absolutes
of Quality Management, or ‘the four basic concepts of the quality improvement
process.’ (Chap. 5) The first of these four absolutes is his definition of quality:
‘Quality has to be defined as conformance to requirements, not as goodness.’
(Chap. 6)
• In their Standard A3-1987 draft, ANSI/ASQC defined quality as ‘the totality of
features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy
stated or implied needs.’ As we can see, this definition includes an emphasis
on service.
• The Baldrige National Quality Program criteria emphasises that quality is both
defined and judged by the customer. In other words, enterprise must be responsive
to customer satisfaction; unsatisfied customers will go elsewhere or will cease to
buy these products and services.
Providers of goods and services must pay close attention to their customers. Customers
want products and services that are available in a timely manner, satisfy high quality
standards, and are competitively priced. These three critical factors, time, quality, and
money, interestingly begin with the initials TQM. Total Quality Management means that
products are produced on schedule, to customer specifications, and within budget. In
the fourth edition of Juran’s Quality Control Handbook (1988), Ekings (1988, p.30.3)
discussed the delicate balance among these three factors for industry and service.
Tremendous pressures are placed on our human resources (both management and
non-management personnel) to cut costs, produce products, and provide services more
rapidly. Such actions often lead to poor design, missed schedules, increased rework,
scrapped goods, poor quality, greater customer dissatisfaction, and ultimately, to increased
costs – a vicious circle caused by the very factors that companies are trying to control.
Time, quality, and money are not independent of one-another. When we pay attention
to, appropriately emphasise, and keep time, quality, and money in balance, we have at
least an opportunity to be successful, as suggested in Figure 2 (A). When we cut quality
by inappropriately emphasising time and money factors (by either wasting time and/or
money or by producing too quickly and/or cutting too many corners on costs), success
will quickly slide away, as suggested in Figure 2 (B).

7 Who is responsible for quality?

Quality is a part of everyone’s job from conceptualisation to delivery. This includes top
management, middle level managers, supervisors, line and staff, maintenance personnel,
and all others. Whatever the enterprise, supply partners, secretaries, janitors, buyers,
procurement managers, trainers, human resources managers, telephone operators, security
staff, compensation analysts, data entry personnel, receptionists, engineers, software
specialists, sales, executives, and others must be a part of this effort. Quality is not simply
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 151

The quality journey 151

a responsibility of the quality control department; it must be a major driver for every
member of any organisation. This emphasis on quality is essential to the future livelihood
of every business endeavour. Without total commitment and total support from top level
management, quality programmes will have only limited success at best. As suggested
by Zilbershtein (2004), top management must be committed to a quality culture and
must demonstrate this commitment to quality through a shared vision. However, this
commitment to quality must be transparent and must be infectious.

Figure 2 The balance of critical business factors (time, quality, and money)

Source: Beatty (2000), Chap. 1.

8 Assessing commitment to quality

Whenever a company undertakes an organisational change effort, it needs mechanisms

for measuring improvement. This is true for any change approach, but it is especially
true for the implementation of quality programmes that are fact-based. All too often
organisations do not establish baselines from which to measure change and progress.
Sometimes this lack of baselines is due to the time and money required to establish the
baselines at the onset (see Figure 2). If an organisation is unwilling to invest time and
money to assess the company’s present state, it is less likely to invest adequate time and
money further down the journey. Alternatively, sometimes an organisation fears what the
baseline might reflect, worrying that measures will initially be so low they will create
dangerous levels of concern and implications. Opting to not develop any baseline due to
fear is very dangerous from many perspectives! Without baselines, comparisons against
a meaningful moment in time cannot be made. Without such comparisons, progress
cannot be determined. As noted earlier, by assessing, understanding, and aligning both
individual and organisational performance, organisations are more able to improve
communication, make effective resource decisions, and better motivate the work force.
The Commitment to Quality Questionnaire (CQQ) was developed by the author in
an effort to assess leader and employee perceptions of individual and organisational
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 152

152 J.R. Beatty

commitment to quality prior to undertaking a quality movement in order to provide a

baseline perspective for quality.

9 CQQ development

9.1 Item pool development

Numerous processes were used to generate items for this instrument, including a thorough
review of the literature, an examination of other instruments designed to measure
commitment and/or quality, interviews with quality experts, and interviews with business
executives. The following guidelines were used in an effort to develop a useful pool
of items:
• The development of a pool of items begins with individuals or a panel of experts
on the subject thinking about and spontaneously writing down what they think are
important characteristics of the constructs being evaluated.
• Many more statements should be generated than will be used in the final form of
the instrument. Initially creating a large pool of statements allows for the selection
of items that reduce redundancy and allows for the availability of replacement
items or additional items when necessary. A variety of items helps to avoid a lack
of interest on the part of the participant when he or she completes the instrument.
• Likert-type scales are usually more effective when seven-point scales are used
instead of five-point scales. Such scales are actually ‘easier’ for the user to
complete, as they have more options. Seven-point scales also tend to create more
variability, allowing for better differentiation among respondents and usually
provide better reliability and validity coefficients.
• The statements should not be susceptible to more than one interpretation.
• Statements should be clear, concise, and straightforward.
• The statements must avoid ambiguity so they can be interpreted in only one way.
• Double-barrelled statements should be avoided.
• Marker statements that specifically include the word or words of the construct
being examined should be incorporated into the instrument to serve as benchmarks.
Other statements that do not use the word or words of the construct but are designed
to measure the same construct should correlate with the marker statements and
should load on the same factor or construct as the marker items in a factor analysis.
• To avoid any tendency to respond in a stereotypical manner, some of the items
should be reversed, such that consistent individuals must respond at the upper end
of the set of scale points for some items and at the lower end of the scale points for
other items.
• A validation scale should be included to determine whether respondents are
providing ‘socially desirable’, ‘socially acceptable’, or otherwise perceived
‘correct’ responses. Such scales are often referred to as lie scales. Responses of
individuals on the set of constructs of interest should be discarded if they score
high on these validation scales.
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 153

The quality journey 153

9.2 Item pool reduction

Following this approach, 310 items were generated for future consideration. Of course,
an instrument consisting of 310 items would be impractical. Therefore, the pool of
potential items needed to be reduced through a systematic approach to a practical set.
Factor analysis and item analysis were used to achieve meaningful item-reduction
and a more parsimonious instrument. The ultimate goal was to create an instrument
that is reliable, valid, and practical for assessing the two dimensions of interest: the
individual’s commitment to quality and the organisation’s commitment to quality. The
instrument was also to be appropriate for use by leaders and by employees themselves.
The data were therefore factor analysed using a systematic approach, eventually resulting
in a reduced set of 23 items 3. Of these 23 items, 10 were determined to measure the
individual’s commitment to quality, 10 were determined to measure the organisation’s
commitment to quality, and three were designated as components of a validation scale.
Eight of the 23 items were reversed to avoid stereotypical responses.

9.3 Factor analysis of the 23-item form of CQQ

It is generally accepted that individual subscales of an instrument should consist of items
that correlate highly with one another (homogeneous items), while the intercorrelations
among the subscales should be low (heterogeneous subscales). A thorough analysis of the
intercorrelation matrix of items often reveals groups of items that correlate highly with
one another while having orthogonal or near-orthogonal relationships with the remaining
items. Factor analysis is a procedure often used to locate such common factors (Guertin
and Bailey, 1970; Horst, 1965; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). A data base consisting of
272 organisational leaders was obtained for this stage of the evaluation process, and
confirmatory factor analysis was used to confirm the existence of the intended constructs
of the instrument.

9.4 Identifying the number of factors

The exact number of factors in a data matrix can rarely be determined, if ever. Further,
not all of the factors will be meaningful. Instead, effort is made to identify common
factors and disregard the specific factors. A common factor is a factor that typically has
a number of variables (i.e., items in the case of instrument development) loading on it,
while a specific factor typically has only one variable loading on it. Much of the analysis
focuses on determining an optimal number of factors to extract. Over-factoring, or factor
fission, results in the extraction of meaningless factors. Under-factoring, or factor fusion,
results in the omission of useful factors. Either situation can result in misleading results.
Using a scree test to chart the eigen values of a factor solution is very helpful for
identifying the number of meaningful factors in common factor space. A scree test for
the 23 item solution is presented in Figure 3. As can be seen, the rate of change becomes
stabilised after the fourth or fifth factor, suggesting that approximately three or four
common factors exist.
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 154

154 J.R. Beatty

Figure 3 A scree test for evaluating eigen values

9.5 Factor rotations

Once the number of factors has been identified, the unrotated factor matrix needs to be
rotated to obtain an interpretable solution. While there are numerous rotation methods
available, the orthogonal rotation is the most commonly used method. The goal of the
orthogonal rotation is to maximise the number of high loadings on factors, while at the
same time maximising the number of near-zero loadings on those factors, placing as
many loadings as possible in the positive manifold. The orthogonal varimax rotation was
used to analyse the Commitment to Quality Questionnaire. This technique was developed
by Kaiser (1958) and results in a close approximation to the simple structure solution that
Thurstone (1947) described as the goal of the rotation process. Thus, the varimax rotation
process was used to analyse the factor solution.

9.6 Examining factor loadings

The original database consisted of responses for 272 organisational leaders on 23 items,
exceeding a target ratio of 10-to-1. Thus, rather than employing a test of significance for
evaluating the factor loadings, an arbitrary decision was made to set 0.30 as the cutoff
point for non-zero loadings. This approach has been recommended by Child (1970, p.45,
1990), Nunnally (1978, pp.357–358), and Overall and Klett (1972, pp.108–109). The
ideal solution would be for each item to load on one and only one factor (i.e., items
with a complexity of one). Using the results of the scree test and the 0.30 loadings as
guidelines, solutions for two, three, four, five, and six factors were examined. These factor
solutions were examined for significant factors, based on percent of variance explained,
and for item complexity, attempting to optimise the number of items with complexities
of one and to minimise the number of items with complexities of zero or greater than one
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 155

The quality journey 155

in an effort to identify the clearest, most interpretable factor solution. As a result, the
three-factor solution was selected for final evaluation and interpretation.
As can be seen in Table 3, each of the item communalities in the three-factor solution
was stabilised by or before 40 iterations to four decimal places. This factor solution
yielded 16 items of complexity one, four items of complexity two, and three items that
did not load in the identified common factor space. The three factors were then further
examined to determine reliability coefficients and to identify the constructs being
measured. Table 4 gives the results of the item analysis. As can be seen, the first subscale
(Individual Commitment to Quality, identified as Factor 2 in the factor analysis) had a
reliability coefficient (coefficient alpha) of 0.62, the second subscale (Organizational
Commitment to Quality, identified as Factor 2 in the factor analysis) had a coefficient of
0.88, and the third subscale (the validity subscale, identified as Factor 3 in the factor
analysis) had a coefficient of 0.65. Nine of the 10 items predetermined to measure
‘organisation’s commitment to quality’ (items 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21, and 23) loaded
on one factor, eight of the 10 items predetermined to measure ‘individual commitment to
quality’ loaded on another factor (items 1, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 22), and all three of
the predetermined validity items loaded on a third factor (items 6, 12, and 18). Only items
2, 3, and 20 did not load as expected. The first 23 items in Appendix A are the items used
in this stage of the instrument development.

9.7 Conclusions regarding the first developmental CQQ effort

The results of the various analyses during the first developmental stage of the
Commitment to Quality Questionnaire were encouraging. The factor analysis confirmed
that most items loaded on the appropriate factors. The three factors were generally
orthogonal to one another, with a correlation coefficient of only 0.30 between the two
primary factors based on the Likert composite scores. Almost all items contributed to the
questionnaire, and all subscales had alphas exceeding 0.60. Further, the items that were
intentionally reversed to prevent stereotyped responses were reversed in the correct
direction, as can be seen from further analysis of Table 3. The next step in the analysis
was to determine whether the same results would hold up as well for employees as
for leaders.

9.8 Confirmatory analysis for other employees

The original form of the CQQ was then administered to a group of 874 employees
working below the leader or manager level. With 874 observations and 23 items, the ratio
of cases to items again well-exceeded the target ratio of 10-to-1. As can be seen in Table
5, each of the item communalities in the three-factor solution was again stabilised by or
before 40 iterations to four decimal places. This factor solution again yielded 16 items of
complexity one, only three items of complexity two, and now four items that did not load
in the identified common factor space. Table 6 gives the reliability coefficients for the
three subscales, based on this database. As can be seen, the coefficient alpha for the first
subscale had increased to 0.68, the second subscale was now 0.84, and the third
subscale had a coefficient of 0.68 as well. Again, nine of the 10 items predetermined
to measure the ‘organisation’s commitment to quality’ (items 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21,
and 23) loaded on one factor, eight of the 10 items predetermined to measure ‘individual
commitment to quality’ loaded on another factor (items 1, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 22),
and all three of the predetermined validity items loaded on a third factor (items 6, 12, and
18). As before, only items 2, 3, and 20 did not load on any factors.
Table 3 Varimax, roots, reversals, stability and factor complexity for 272 leaders
10_Beatty*

Varimax rotation Stabilised factors after 40 iterations 156

Anticipated Iteration 40 Iteration 39 Table 3
Item 1 2 3 h2 factor Reversals Item Communality Communality Change Complexity
2/11/05

1 0.12 0.53 0.04 0.29 2 0 1 0.2122 0.2122 0 1

2 0.27 0.10 0.12 0.05 1 1 2 0.1167 0.1167 0 0
J.R. Beatty

3 0.24 0.20 0.18 0.12 2 1 3 0.1208 0.1208 0 0

4:00 pm

4 0.62 0.06 0.13 0.35 1 1 4 0.4785 0.4785 0 2

5 0.07 0.43 0.04 0.19 2 0 5 0.1085 0.1085 0 1
6 0.24 0.06 0.65 0.53 3 0 6 0.6036 0.6036 0 1
7 0.65 0.09 0.26 0.46 1 0 7 0.4811 0.4811 0 1
Page 156

8 0.07 0.29 0.17 0.14 2 0 8 0.1480 0.1480 0 1

9 0.50 0.32 0.01 0.32 1 0 9 0.3033 0.3033 0 1
10 0.18 0.53 0.13 0.31 2 0 10 0.2635 0.2635 0 1
11 0.67 0.02 0.14 0.44 1 1 11 0.5165 0.5165 0 1
12 0.36 0.06 0.44 0.34 3 1 12 0.4146 0.4146 0 2
13 0.09 0.72 0.01 0.52 2 0 13 0.4956 0.4956 0 1
14 0.60 0.25 0.10 0.43 1 0 14 0.4834 0.4834 0 2
15 0.17 0.57 0.09 0.33 2 0 15 0.3546 0.3546 0 1
16 0.78 0.09 0.02 0.57 1 1 16 0.6153 0.6153 0 1
17 0.09 0.44 0.05 0.22 2 0 17 0.1332 0.1332 0 1
18 0.12 0.05 0.61 0.42 3 0 18 0.3061 0.3061 0 1
19 0.56 0.22 0.21 0.37 1 0 19 0.4842 0.4842 0 2
20 0.14 0.29 0.06 0.11 2 1 20 0.0559 0.0559 0 0
21 0.78 0.01 0.00 0.56 1 1 21 0.6251 0.6251 0 1
Varimax, roots, reversals, stability and factor complexity for 272 leaders

22 0.18 0.54 0.01 0.31 2 0 22 0.3948 0.3948 0 1

23 0.79 0.15 0.22 0.64 1 0 23 0.6746 0.6746 0 1
Latent roots
4.13 2.55 1.32
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 157

The quality journey 157

Table 4 Composite item analysis for 23 items and 272 leaders

Correlation
Number Standard Average Average between
of Standard Coefficient error of item- item- scales
Scale items Mean deviation alpha measurement total remainder 1 and 2

Full 23 116.0441 16.9614 0.8495 6.5796 0.4706 0.4041

1 10 58.5882 5.7243 0.6179 3.5385 0.5012 0.3249
0.30
2 10 49.4632 12.2859 0.8769 4.3113 0.6922 0.6088
3 3 7.9926 3.6528 0.6513 2.1569 0.7684 0.4716

9.9 Conclusions regarding the second developmental CQQ effort

The results of the various analyses during the second developmental stage of the CQQ
were even more encouraging, as the results from the second, independent group of
employees were very similar to those for the group of leaders, suggesting the questionnaire
was stable and reliable as well as valid, based on construct validity. This time the two
primary scales had a correlation of only 0.25 based on the Likert composite scores,
again suggesting the two scales were relatively independent. However, an examination of
results from both groups suggested that the Organisational Commitment to Quality scale
was much stronger (with higher reliability coefficients, higher construct validity, and
higher latent roots) than the Individual Commitment to Quality scale. Further analysis
revealed that while there was a significant difference between the variances of the two
groups (F1.22, p0.0005), with the employees having more variability than the leaders,
there were no differences in the mean scores for these two groups (t1.01, p0.3118).
With regard to the more reliable and valid Organisational Commitment to Quality scale,
there were no significant differences between the variances of the two groups (F1.14,
p0.0839) and no differences in the mean scores for these two groups (t0.3005,
p0.7639). Finally, when comparing scores on the validity or lie scale, there were
significant differences between the variances of the two groups (F1.22, p0.0241) and
significant differences in the mean scores for these two groups (t2.6008, p0.0096),
suggesting that the employees varied more than the leaders on this dimension and also
scored higher on the validity scale, suggesting they may be more influenced by responding
in a ‘socially [i.e. organisationally] desirable’ way than the leaders.

10 Further development of the CQQ

While the factor structures of the two independent samples were strong and consistent,
the reliability coefficients for the Individual Commitment to Quality scale were only in
the 0.62 to 0.68 range. In an effort to improve the reliability coefficients, seven items
from the original item pool were added to the questionnaire. Three items were selected
for each of the two primary subscales, and one item was selected for the validity subscale.
The revised version of the CQQ, consisting of 30 items, was then administered to three
more groups: 111 executives, 144 managers, and 307 non-exempt employees. These groups
were analysed separately and collectively.
 10_Beatty*

Table 3 Varimax, roots, reversals, stability and factor complexity for 272 leaders
Varimax rotation Stabilised factors after 40 iterations
158

Anticipated Iteration 40 Iteration 39 Table 5

Item 1 2 3 h2 factor Reversals Item Communality Communality Change Complexity
2/11/05

1 0.12 0.44 0.05 0.21 2 0 1 0.2855 0.2855 0.0000 1

2 0.27 0.21 0.02 0.12 1 1 2 0.0494 0.0494 0.0000 0
J.R. Beatty

3 0.24 0.25 0.06 0.12 2 1 3 0.1171 0.1171 0.0000 0

4:00 pm

4 0.62 0.07 0.30 0.48 1 1 4 0.3492 0.3492 0.0000 1

5 0.07 0.32 0.07 0.11 2 0 5 0.1870 0.1870 0.0000 1
6 0.24 0.18 0.72 0.60 3 0 6 0.5290 0.5290 0.0000 2
7 0.65 0.11 0.22 0.48 1 0 7 0.4627 0.4627 0.0000 1
Page 158

8 0.07 0.34 0.16 0.15 2 0 8 0.1420 0.1420 0.0000 0

9 0.50 0.23 0.05 0.30 1 0 9 0.3199 0.3199 0.0000 2
10 0.18 0.48 0.04 0.26 2 0 10 0.3136 0.3136 0.0000 1
11 0.67 0.00 0.26 0.52 1 1 11 0.4410 0.4410 0.0000 1
12 0.36 0.14 0.52 0.41 3 1 12 0.3373 0.3373 0.0000 2
13 0.09 0.70 0.01 0.50 2 0 13 0.5167 0.5167 0.0000 1
14 0.60 0.35 0.03 0.48 1 0 14 0.4308 0.4308 0.0000 1
15 0.17 0.52 0.24 0.35 2 0 15 0.3302 0.3302 0.0000 1
16 0.78 0.01 0.05 0.62 1 1 16 0.5688 0.5688 0.0000 1
17 0.09 0.32 0.15 0.13 2 0 17 0.2198 0.2198 0.0000 1
18 0.12 0.03 0.54 0.31 3 0 18 0.4169 0.4169 0.0000 1
19 0.56 0.23 0.34 0.48 1 0 19 0.3715 0.3715 0.0000 1
20 0.14 0.18 0.07 0.06 2 1 20 0.1093 0.1093 0.0000 0
21 0.78 0.02 0.11 0.63 1 1 21 0.5554 0.5554 0.0000 1
22 0.18 0.60 0.04 0.39 2 0 22 0.3100 0.3100 0.0000 1
Varimax, roots, reversals, stability and factor complexity for 874 employees

23 0.79 0.18 0.12 0.67 1 0 23 0.6392 0.6392 0.0000 1

Latent roots
4.13 2.55 1.32
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 159

The quality journey 159

Table 6 Composite item analysis for 23 items and 874 employees

Correlation
Number Standard Average Average between
of Standard Coefficient error of item- item- scales
Scale items Mean deviation alpha measurement total remainder 1 and 2

Full 23 116.5435 16.6231 0.8239 6.9756 0.4488 0.3733

1 10 58.1670 6.7789 0.6812 3.8278 0.5313 0.3715
0.25
2 10 49.7071 11.4984 0.8429 4.5576 0.6497 0.5507
3 3 8.6693 4.0361 0.6843 2.2679 0.7826 0.5010

10.1 Results for the revised version of the CQQ

As can be seen in Tables 7–10, after adding the three additional items, the reliability
coefficients for Individual Commitment to Quality were 0.75, 0.78, and 0.76 for the
executives, managers, and non-exempts, respectively. These coefficients were dramatically
improved over the original form of the questionnaire. With regard to Organisational
Commitment to Quality, the reliability coefficients were 0.90, 0.90, and 0.88 for the
executives, managers, and non-exempts, respectively. Thus, the reliability coefficients
were now within very respectable ranges, especially for scales containing only 13 items
each. Furthermore, the correlations between the two primary subscales were only 0.24,
0.15, and 0.28, for the executives, managers, and non-exempts, respectively. These
low correlations provide further evidence that the two scales are relatively independent
of one-another, as desired.

Table 7 Composite item analysis for 30 items and 111 executives

Correlation
Number Standard Average Average between
of Standard Coefficient error of item- item- scales
Scale items Mean deviation alpha measurement total remainder 1 and 2

Full 30 151.2162 21.0685 0.8536 8.0609 0.4367 0.3763

1 13 73.5586 9.2409 0.7481 4.6384 0.5323 0.4118
0.24
2 13 64.3694 15.1645 0.8985 4.8301 0.6713 0.6024
3 4 13.2883 4.6483 0.5956 2.9562 0.6766 0.3947

Table 8 Composite item analysis for 30 items and 144 managers

Correlation
Number Standard Average Average between
of Standard Coefficient error of item- item- scales
Scale items Mean deviation alpha measurement total remainder 1 and 2

Full 30 150.0972 20.7746 0.8570 7.8554 0.4287 0.3701

1 13 76.6250 8.7193 0.7776 4.1115 0.5469 0.4381
0.15
2 13 60.5347 15.8100 0.9007 4.9823 0.6774 0.6107
3 4 12.9375 3.9174 0.4260 2.9680 0.6155 0.2624
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 160

160 J.R. Beatty

Table 9 Composite item analysis for 30 items and 307 non-exempts

Correlation
Number Standard Average Average between
of Standard Coefficient error of item- item- scales
Scale items Mean deviation alpha measurement total remainder 1 and 2

Full 30 152.0456 21.8796 0.8574 8.2610 0.4473 0.3873

1 13 73.9283 9.6101 0.7563 4.7444 0.5352 0.4164
0.28
2 13 63.3811 14.8016 0.8755 5.2225 0.6385 0.5608
3 4 14.7362 4.4968 0.5411 3.0461 0.6527 0.3367

Table 10 Composite item analysis for 111 executives, 144 managers and 307 non-exempts
combined
Correlation
Number Standard Average Average between
of Standard Coefficient error of item- item- scales
Scale items Mean deviation alpha measurement total remainder 1 and 2

Full 30 151.3826 21.4204 0.8536 8.1961 0.4372 0.3763

1 13 74.5463 9.3813 0.7566 4.6281 0.5354 0.4162
0.23
2 13 62.8470 15.1754 0.8860 5.1235 0.6527 0.5788
3 4 13.9893 4.4570 0.5450 3.0064 0.6554 0.3437

10.2 Comparing the three groups using the revised version of the CQQ
An analysis of the Individual Commitment to Quality scale revealed there was no
significant difference among the variances of the three groups using Bartlett’s chi-square
test for homogeneity of variance ( 21.81, p0.4041). However, the analysis of variance
(ANOVA) for comparing the three group means yielded a significant difference among
group means (F4.88, p0.0079), with a significantly higher mean for the managers
than the executives (Scheffé F6.79, p0.05) and the non-exempts (Scheffé F8.21,
p0.05). This suggests that the managers perceived themselves as being more committed
to quality than their two counterpart groups. With regard to the more reliable and valid
Organisational Commitment to Quality scale, there was no significant difference among
the variances of the three groups using Bartlett’s chi-square test for homogeneity of
variance ( 20.86, p0.6511) or among the group means (F2.43, p0.0887).

10.3 The validity scale

Finally, when comparing scores on the validity or lie scale, there was no significant
difference among the variances of the three groups using Bartlett’s chi-square test for
homogeneity of variance ( 24.54, p0.1034). However, the ANOVA yielded a significant
difference among the three group means (F10.00, p0.0001), with a significantly
higher mean for the non-exempts than for the executives (Scheffé F8.88, p0.05)
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 161

The quality journey 161

or for the managers (Scheffé F16.48, p0.05). This might at first glance suggest that
non-exempt employees may be more inclined to respond in a ‘socially [i.e.,
organisationally] desirable’ or safer way than the executives or managers. However, the
reliability coefficients for the validity scale actually went down after adding a new item.
Scales with only three or four items are seldom expected to have very high reliability
coefficients. Obviously, the new item did not correlate well with the other three items on
the original version of the validity scale. Thus, the final version of the CQQ currently
only consists of the original three items in the validity scale. As shown in Table 10, based
on the combination of 562 executives, managers, and non-exempt employees, the
reliability coefficient for the validity scale, based on three items instead of four items, is
now 0.65. This is a respectable reliability coefficient, given the large size of the data base
and the small number of items used on the scale. This scale might be useful in eliminating
subjects if the individual’s validity score falls significantly above the average validity score,
an indication the individual may be giving organisationally desirable, safe responses as
opposed to true responses.

10.4 A final look at the factor structure of the 30 item version

As can be seen in Table 11, each of the item communalities in the three-factor solution
was stabilised by or before 40 iterations to four decimal places. This factor solution
yielded 26 items of complexity one, two items of complexity two, and two items that did
not load in the identified common factor space. Achieving 26 complexity one loadings
out of a possible 30 provides very strong evidence of a three-factor solution. Furthermore,
11 of the 13 items designed for first subscale (Individual Commitment to Quality,
identified as Factor 2 in the factor analysis) indeed loaded on that factor, and 13 of the 13
items designed for the second subscale (Organisational Commitment to Quality, identified
as Factor 2 in the factor analysis) loaded on that factor. Finally, three of the four
predetermined validity items again loaded the third factor, while the newly added statement
(item 24) did not. This is consistent with the previous discussion. All 30 items are given
in Appendix A.

11 Discussion

As suggested by the present study, the revised version of the CQQ appears to consist of
subscales that can be useful in obtaining baselines for organisations as they begin their
quality journeys. The means and standard deviations given in the current study can also
provide benchmarks for comparison purposes. The demographic information, as well as
means and standard deviations for the two primary subscales (Individual Commitment
to Quality and Organisational Commitment to Quality) for the 23-item form and the
30-item form of the CQQ instrument are given in Appendix B. Quality leaders, human
resources managers, organisational consultants, and organisational executives can use
these norms as benchmarks from which to evaluate their own data.
 10_Beatty*

Table 3 Varimax, roots, reversals, stability and factor complexity for 272 leaders
Varimax rotation Stabilised factors after 40 iterations
162

Anticipated Iteration 40 Iteration 39 Table 11

Item 1 2 3 h2 factor Reversals Item Communality Communality Change Complexity
2/11/05

1 0.03 0.66 0.04 0.44 2 0 1 0.4352 0.4352 0.0000 1

2 0.36 0.09 0.23 0.19 1 1 2 0.1907 0.1907 0.0000 1
3 0.28 0.16 0.16 2 1 3 0.1631 0.1631 0.0000 0
J.R. Beatty

0.25
4:00 pm

4 0.55 0.02 0.03 0.31 1 1 4 0.3085 0.3085 0.0000 1

5 0.09 0.34 0.04 0.12 2 0 5 0.1230 0.1230 0.0000 1
6 0.28 0.07 0.56 0.40 3 0 6 0.3990 0.3990 0.0000 1
7 0.56 0.11 0.30 0.42 1 0 7 0.4186 0.4186 0.0000 2
8 0.24 0.35 0.18 0.21 2 0 8 0.2110 0.2110 0.0000 1
Page 162

9 0.54 0.27 0.01 0.37 1 0 9 0.3671 0.3671 0.0000 1

10 0.13 0.61 0.24 0.44 2 0 10 0.4436 0.4436 0.0000 1
11 0.62 0.04 0.13 0.41 1 1 11 0.4076 0.4076 0.0000 1
12 0.27 0.11 0.51 0.35 3 1 12 0.3490 0.3490 0.0000 1
13 0.06 0.74 0.02 0.55 2 0 13 0.5527 0.5527 0.0000 1
14 0.61 0.28 0.12 0.46 1 0 14 0.4602 0.4602 0.0000 1
managers, and non-exempts combined

15 0.04 0.61 0.08 0.37 2 0 15 0.3744 0.3744 0.0000 1

16 0.74 0.03 0.04 0.54 1 1 16 0.5440 0.5440 0.0000 1
17 0.17 0.54 0.19 0.35 2 0 17 0.3546 0.3546 0.0000 1
18 0.14 0.03 0.59 0.37 3 0 18 0.3723 0.3723 0.0000 1
19 0.60 0.17 0.15 0.41 1 0 19 0.4145 0.4145 0.0000 1
20 0.05 0.33 0.07 0.12 2 1 20 0.1189 0.1189 0.0000 1
21 0.72 0.02 0.02 0.53 1 1 21 0.5259 0.5259 0.0000 1
22 0.10 0.65 0.02 0.44 2 0 22 0.4356 0.4356 0.0000 1
23 0.75 0.12 0.22 0.63 1 0 23 0.6272 0.6272 0.0000 1
24 0.09 0.31 0.11 0.12 3 1 24 0.1183 0.1183 0.0000 1
25 0.49 0.11 0.30 0.34 1 1 25 0.3416 0.3416 0.0000 2
26 0.05 0.40 0.04 0.17 2 0 26 0.1673 0.1673 0.0000 1
27 0.54 0.21 0.05 0.34 1 0 27 0.3351 0.3351 0.0000 1
28 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.13 2 1 28 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 0
Varimax, roots, reversals, stability and factor complexity for 562 executives,

29 0.78 0.04 0.03 0.61 1 1 29 0.6134 0.6134 0.0000 1

30 0.03 0.54 0.13 0.31 2 0 30 0.3066 0.3066 0.0000 1
Latent roots
5.36 3.72 1.54
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 163

The quality journey 163

According to Townsend and Gebhardt (2005), ‘the challenge for every nation is to retain
control of its prosperity by bringing capital from the rest of the world into its banking
system’ (p.30), a compelling motivator for quality improvement processes. They pointed
out that a commitment to quality leads to opportunities for increasing capital (the bottom
line), developing loyal customers and employees, improving business practices, and
practicing more ethical behaviour. Whether organisations are planning on installing a
quality programme such as TQM, Lean Manufacturing, ISO, Six Sigma, or Baldrige, they
will need a commitment and a starting point from which to examine progress. Two of the
most important areas that should be assessed at the onset are the individual’s commitment
to quality and the organisational commitment to quality. The CQQ instrument has been
found to be reliable, valid, brief, and useful across all groups for this purpose, whether
they are executives, leaders, managers, or non-exempt employees. The instrument only
requires a few minutes to complete and is very easy to score. Users are encouraged to
administer the instrument annually in order to establish trends, and are strongly urged to
share the results of the surveys with the workforce. Employees often become disgruntled
or suspicious when surveys are conducted within the workforce without follow-up or any
sharing of the data.
The items used in the two forms of the instrument are presented in Appendix A,
which are available to the public. The scaling format must be a Likert-type seven-point
scale in order to obtain comparative data with the norm groups presented in this article.
The scale points are as follows: 1strongly disagree, 2moderately disagree, 3slightly
disagree, 4neutral, 5slightly agree, 6moderately agree, and 7strongly agree.
Certain items must be reversed to yield correct results, as indicated in the various tables
of this article. They are items 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, and 29.

12 Final thoughts

The CQQ only provides basic information about employee perceptions of their own
commitment to quality and more importantly to their perception of the organisation’s
commitment to quality. While the instrument has much potential for providing useful
information and has been used successfully in the past for such purposes, the CQQ is
merely a starting point for obtaining baselines and benchmarks in the quality journey.
The Baldrige National Quality Program has developed two instruments that can
also be useful for establishing baselines. The first of these instruments is entitled ‘Are
We Making Progress?’ The second instrument is entitled ‘Are We Making Progress as
Leaders?’ (Baldrige National Quality Program, 2004b, c). These instruments are designed
to help organisations determine whether the leaders’ perceptions of the organisation at a
given point in time are consistent with the perceptions of the employees. By establishing
such baselines and measuring such perspectives, the organisation can better focus on
improvement efforts and gain valuable information for communicating areas that need
attention. These two companion instruments each consist of 40 items to be answered in
a five-choice Likert-style format. The 40 items include statements from each of the seven
Categories within the Criteria for Performance Excellence. Unfortunately, since the 2005
Criteria contain seven Categories, with 19 major Items within the Categories, 32 Areas
to Address, and 80 Multiple Requirements, obtaining a reliable and valid assessment of
leader and employee perceptions regarding the Criteria is difficult when limited to 40 items.
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 164

164 J.R. Beatty

As an alternative, the present author has developed the Baldrige Criteria

Questionnaire (BCQ) to examine leader and employee perceptions of an organisation’s
readiness for Baldrige orientation. The BCQ consists of 131 statements that assess
perceptions for all seven Categories of the Criteria for Performance Excellence, plus
a validity scale 4. This instrument has been developed through an exhaustive process
of item development and review, with thousands of individuals completing one of the
various forms of the instrument. The reliability coefficients for each of the scales are
as follows:
• leadership 0.95
• strategic planning 0.91
• customer and market focus 0.91
• measurement, analysis, and knowledge management 0.92
• human resource focus 0.91
• process management 0.92
• business results 0.92
• validity 0.85.
Due to time and space allotted for this article, the details of the BCQ instrument will not
be presented here. Inquiries regarding the Baldrige Assessment Questionnaire are welcome.

References

American National Standards Institute/American Society for Quality Control (ANSI/ASQC)

(1987) Standard A3-1987 draft.
Baldrige National Quality Program (2004a) 2004 Frequently Asked Questions, Gaithersburg, MD:
Baldrige National Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.
Dept of Commerce.
Baldrige National Quality Program (2004b) Are We Making Progress?, Gaithersburg, MD:
Baldrige National Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.
Dept of Commerce.
Baldrige National Quality Program (2004c) Are We Making Progress as Leaders?, Gaithersburg,
MD: Baldrige National Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
U.S. Dept of Commerce.
Baldrige National Quality Program (November 22, 2004d), available at: http://www.nist.gov/
public_affairs/factsheet/baldfaqs.htm).
Baldrige National Quality Program (2005) 2005 Criteria for Performance Excellence,
Gaithersburg, MD: Baldrige National Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, U.S. Dept of Commerce.
Beatty, J.R. (2000) Statistical Methods: Volume One, 6th edn, New York: McGraw-Hill, Primis
Publishing.
Cattell, R.B. (1966) ‘The scree test for the number of factors’, Multivariate Behavioral Research,
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.245–276.
Child, D. (1970) The Essentials of Factor Analysis, London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
10_Beatty* 11/11/05 11:08 am Page 165

The quality journey 165

Child, D. (1990) The Essentials of Factor Analysis, 2nd edn, London: Cassell Education Limited.
Crosby, P.B. (1984) Quality without Tears: The Art of Hassle-Free Management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Deming, W.E. (1938, 1943) Statistical Adjustment of Data. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Deming, W.E. (1982, 1986) Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Deming, W.E. (1993) The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Ekings, J.D. (1988) ‘Assembly industries’, in J.M. Juran and F.M. Gryna (Eds), Juran’s Quality
Control Handbook, 4th edn, New York: McGraw-Hill, (pp.30.1–30.49).
Feigenbaum, A.V. (1983) Total Quality Control, 3rd. edn., New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guertin, W.H. and Bailey, J.P., Jr (1970) Introduction to Modern Factor Analysis, Ann Arbor,
MI: Edwards Brothers, Inc.
Horst, P. (1965) Factor Analysis of Data Matrices, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2005) ISO website, available at: (http://
www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index.html).
Juran, J.M. and Gryna, F.M. (1988) Juran’s Quality Control Handbook, 4th edn, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Kaiser, H.F. (1958) ‘The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis’, Psychometrika,
Vol. 23, pp.187–200.
Likert, R. (1967) The Human Organization: Its Management and Value, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Maslow, A.H. (1954) Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper.
McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994) Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Overall, J.E. and Klett, C.J. (1972) Applied Multivariate Analysis, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Profile of ISO 9000: Handbook of Quality Standards and Compliance, (1992). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Rummel, R.J. (1970) Applied Factor Analysis, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Sasaki, N. and Hutchins, D. (Eds) (1984) The Japanese Approach to Product Quality, Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Thurstone, L.L. (1947) Multiple-Factor Analysis: A Development and Expansion of the Vectors of
Mind, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Townsend, P. and Gebhardt, J. (2005) ‘A bare bones look at the bottom line’, Quality Progress,
Vol. 38, No. 5, pp.29–35.
Zilbershtein, D. (2004) ‘Bridging cultural divides’, Quality Progress, Vol. 37, No. 8, pp.38–39.

Notes
1
Deming’s Fourteen Points and the five Deadly Diseases have been thoroughly discussed in Out
of the Crisis and other sources; therefore, they do not need to be outlined here.
2
There are three Criteria manuals for Baldrige assessment: one for manufacturing, small business,
the service industry, and not-for-profits; one for health care; and one for education.
3
Due to space limitations, the step-by-step process of reducing the item pool from 310 items to
23 items will not be presented.
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 166

166 J.R. Beatty

4
The author has also developed and implemented an instrument that assesses leader and employee
perceptions of an organisation’s TQM position. The Total Quality Management Questionnaire
provides assessment of organisational perceptions from both managerial and employee
perspectives. It consists of 120 items within the following dimensions: teamwork; leadership;
philosophy, vision, and planning; data and process analysis; continuous improvement; customer
satisfaction; problem solving; human resources development and management; organisation’s
commitment to quality; employee’s commitment to quality; business results; a validity scale.

Appendix A: Items of the Commitment to Quality Questionnaire

1. I enthusiastically put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order
to achieve quality products.
2. I seldom have a good reason to praise the quality of my company’s products.
3. I am seldom motivated to perform at a high quality level in most work environments.
4. I often feel ashamed by the lack of quality produced by my organisation.
5. I am willing to accept most job assignments in order to achieve the necessary quality
of the product my company should be producing.
6. All of my company’s products are defect free.
7. My company places more emphasis on quality than most US companies do.
8. My dedication to quality is stronger than my loyalty to the organisation.
9. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organisation.
10. I receive much pleasure from performing quality work.
11. My company’s lack of quality limits its ability to compete in the marketplace.
12. I sometimes have seen products produced here that are less than perfect.
13. Quality as a goal typically inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance.
14. My organisation places a strong emphasis on quality.
15. Sometimes I feel like I am a perfectionist when it comes to quality.
16. My company is only willing to pay ‘lip service’ to concerns about quality.
17. I strongly support a goal of continuous process improvement in all aspects of my
organisation’s activities.
18. The employees in my organisation never make mistakes when it comes to producing
quality products.
19. My company strongly supports a goal of continuous process improvement in all
aspects of its activities.
20. When considering job opportunities, product quality is not as important to me as
employee benefits.
21. Top management’s lack of support for quality is a major weakness of my organisation.
22. I practice what I preach regarding quality.
23. My company practices what it preaches regarding quality.
24. I have sometimes skimped on quality to make my productivity look better.
25. My organisation has not allocated enough resources to quality issues.
26. Given the choice between working for a company that stresses product quality and
a company that pays somewhat higher without stressing product quality as much,
I would choose the company that stresses product quality.
27. If I were the customer, I would purchase products from my company instead of from
the competition.
10_Beatty* 2/11/05 4:00 pm Page 167

The quality journey 167

28. It would be unreasonable to ask me to work overtime without pay in order to correct
a team-related quality problem.
29. Management in this organisation is not truly committed to quality.
30. I am unhappy when I do not produce the best quality products that I am capable of
producing.

Appendix B: Demographic data, primary scale means, and primary scale

standard deviations for 23 and 30 item forms
Table ? Post hoc ANOVA analyses for differences in business performance between
planning levels
Original Original Second group Second group
leaders/ non-exempt of leaders/ of non-exempt
Scale managers employees Executives managers employees
23 item format 30 item format

Number 272 874 111 144 307

Age 40.22 38.74 41.29 39.78 39.77
Education 15.47 14.65 17.44 16.29 15.09
Gender 71% males 69% males 78% males 71% males 70% males
Mean on ICQ 58.59 58.17 73.56 76.63 73.93
Standard deviation
on ICQ 5.72 6.78 9.24 8.72 9.61
Mean on OCQ 49.46 49.71 64.37 60.53 63.38
Standard deviation
on OCQ 12.29 11.50 15.16 15.81 14.80