14. References
Blaga, P., & Jozsef, B. (2014). Human resources, quality circles and innovation. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 1458-1462.
doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00611-X
Barrick, M. R., & Alexander, R. A. (1992). Estimating the benefits of a quality circle intervention. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 13(1),
73-80.
Edwards, C. (2016). Participatory leadership. LinkedIn Corporation. Retrieved 11 Nov 2016 from https://www.linkedin.com
Hanson, L. C., Green, M. A., Hayes, M., Diehl, S. J., Warnock, S., Corbie-Smith, G., & Earp, J. A. (2014). Circles of Care: Implementation and
Evaluation of Support Teams for African Americans with Cancer. Health Education & Behavior, 41(3), 291-298.
Hosseinabadi, R., Karampourian, A., Beiranvand, S., & Pournia, Y. (2013). The effect of quality circles on job satisfaction and quality of work-
life of staff in emergency medical services. International Emergency Nursing, 21, 264-270. doi:10.1016/j.ienj.2012.10.002
Ioannidis, G., Papaioannou, A., Thabane, L., Gafni, A., Hodsman, A., Kvern, B., & Adachi, J. D. (2009). The utilization of appropriate
osteoporosis medications improves following a multifaceted educational intervention: the Canadian quality circle project (CQC). BMC
Medical Education, 9(54). doi:10.1186/1472-6920-9-54
Yaholkoski, A., Hurl, K., & Theule, J. (2016). Efficacy of the circle of security intervention: a meta-analysis. Journal Of Infant, Child &
Adolescent Psychotherapy, 15(2), 95-103. doi:10.1080/15289168.2016.1163161
EdwardsCPSY8404-9
Editor's Notes
Hello everyone! I hope you are having a pleasant and quality day. Thank you for coming together to form this circle of quality as we discuss quality circle interventions. As you can already tell I will be saying the words quality and circle way too much in the presentation, so just come to grips with it now. I will tell you that if you put forth the effort in attention, however, you will hopefully walk away with a broader knowledge of what a quality circle intervention is, and what it looks like in practice. With that being said we can begin this incredible adventure together if there are no initial questions. Any? Let's go!
I have probably overused what I am about to say, but I sincerely believe in it. Rule number one for a great presentation is to keep the overview slide brief. That way you inspire hope that it will be brief, but then you take pleasure in dragging out each topic on and on until everyone is sick and tired of talking about the subject. This is the model for learning that we have all growth to dislike, and I take a perverse pride in knowing I am a part of that process in your life. Of course, I am completely kidding. I sincerely hope it is not that bad for you, and that we can share some laughs as we learn some new things. Seriously, these are the three broad topics we will be focusing on in regards to quality circle interventions.
A wise philosophy once said before we can discuss something we must define what we will be discussing. Well actually I am just quoting a friend of mine on Google+, a social media website, but he is working on a degree in philosophy, so sort of. In any case, I believe he is correct. I happen to be married to a foreign-born spouse, and can personally attest to the fact that too often people argue simply because they are not talking about the same topic. To alleviate that confusion, let recognize this clear cut definition of what we are talking about when we discuss quality circle intervention today. It might not be a universally accept version, but for today this is what we will be accepting as the universal definition.
That is an excellent question, and it cannot be answered here today. This is simply a question that would need to be asked to apply it. The reason we cannot answer it today is that it is all relative. Each organization has to answer this within the context of their organizational structure. What I can tell you wherever is one method of answering the question. You may have noticed the date of the reference I used to build the definition of Quality Circle intervention. It was 1992, so you know this is not a new process. There is plenty of supporting documentation. One particular method of answering this question comes from that same source, and it is called the decision-theoretic utility equation. The equation, which is depiction on the slide, can give an estimate of the expected usefulness this type of intervention will be to your organization (as cited in Barrick et al., 1992). There is no need for us here to dive into actually solving that formula. Just know that there are relatively objective manners in which you can determine if this type of intervention will work for your organization.
Another key factor to remember is that this is an intervention that is human resources-centric. What that means is that this particular method is focused on utilizing the largest capital of any organization, the people that make up that organization. That is a good thing, right? Yes and no. Yes, it is good that an organization looks to its bets resource to solve problems, because as that quote alludes to…people are the most innovative in generating solutions. Perhaps one-day computers may surpass us, but until that day people are the best resource. However, using this method is not all cream and sugar. Whenever we attempt to utilize diversity to maximize outputs, complications arise. They are too numerous to mention here, so I am merely pointing out that there will be some challenge associated with human nature that will be a part of the price tag for using this method.
This key factor is answering the question, ‘what does it do?' We know what it is, we are aware we can find out if it is useful for our purpose, and we know it involves human resources. Where is the benefit? Well, it has been shown to be a benefit to those organizational factors. That particular study I am quoting there found that there was quality of work-life and job satisfaction of nurses working in emergency medical services, which is a high-stress job (Hosseinabadi, Karampourian, Beiranvand, & Pournia, 2013). Again we have to step back to applicability, though, and that is why I led in with that. It might work for nurses, but not what you do. Perhaps it works for high-stress positions but not low-stress jobs. The point here is though that in at least some instances there is a definite improvement when properly implemented. And that is our next topic of discussion.
Whoa! Did you just see that professional transition? This is top notch presenting right here I am sure we are all in agreeance with that. Perfectly mechanical and dry. Sorry, but we have to move on somehow. How to implement it? That is what we are going to begin to answer here, and it can be done in a simplified concept of three steps. We will do that by examining three cases of it being used. We won't get into the weeds because remember relevancy plays a huge role in implementation, and it might be too complicated to depict that here. You start by soliciting for volunteers to be in the groups, of course, but it truly begins with training in problem analysis and statically techniques (Barrick & Alexander, 1992). This was the case with the implementation of quality circles in the nursing example on the previous slide. Implementation began with two training sessions that educated participants on group dynamics, problem-solving, and various other techniques of quality circles such as the roles of member, etc. (Hosseinabadi et al., 2013). That is the first step towards implementation, and it can be easily described as I have illustrated on this slide as teaching the participants how to think critically.
It looks so simple on that slide there, doesn't it? Step two, do what the group tells you to do! Sure, that's so easy to do, right? Perhaps not so much, but the proof is there. The level of innovation that may be produced by these circles can have astronomical effects. A Romanian company, which is a leader in electrostatic painting services utilized quality circles, and ended up with an analysis of their technological processes of chemical treatment that enable them to reduce production costs of that process (Blaga et al., 2014). How'd they do that? Well, the circle ended up forming an action plan with observable stages, data collection, analysis, interpretation, conclusions, and measures all geared at obtaining the set target of reducing production costs (Blaga et al., 2014). That all came from performing that first step of training the individuals on how to operate within the circle to find a solution. You would be right to have at least one of your eyebrows raised at this point in the presentation.
It would be nice to train a handful of people, throw them in a room together, and then magically have all your organizational problems disappear as if you just sent the circle of individuals to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry with Harry Potter and the gang. However, there is no magic to it. It is hard work and dedication just like anything else that is worth achieving in life, in my opinion. The best things in life might be free, but only because they free you up to work better and harder on other things. In this case, ensuring that the implemented circle is producing effective strategies there will need to be a conscious effort to provide feedback to the group and to evaluate the effectiveness of what is being generated by the group. Adjustments can then be made where necessary, and everyone is the wiser. Take the case of correctly using osteoporosis medication. Using a five-phased approach, in which one of the final phases was final educational intervention, and final follow-up data collection, practitioners in Canada were able to improve the manner in which physicians were using medicine to help patients suffering from osteoporosis (Ioannidis, Papaioannou, Thabane, Gafni, Hodsman, Kvern, & Adachi, 2009). That was a massive undertaking, and I am oversimplifying it for sure, but the point is that the final step will need to include some form of feedback loop. In this case, that included a re-education, which is neat, because this could then perpetuate better education for future quality circle efforts. There's another benefit; it is sustainable.
Of those three cases, you have probably gathered that there are some serious benefits that can be obtained through the quality circle intervention. We did not talk too much about the negative impacts, but I have suggested them a few times. It will take effort and resources to make this intervention happen, and there are complications that arise from utilizing humans in groups. However, the sky is the limit as to where this method can be applied. For instance, it was found that support services for African Americans were lacking, and that led to the development of a promising new model of coordinated volunteer support teams to help alleviate the matter (Hanson, Green, Hayes, Diehl, Warnock, Corbie-Smith, & Earp, J. A. (2014). It does appear to be a good match for a wide array of scenarios.
Another positive comparative outcome for the use of quality circle intervention is the ability for it to produce attainable desirable results, or what one might call high levels of efficacy. For instance, one quality circle model has been developed called the Circle of Security, which was aimed at providing caregivers better tools to provide for their children (Yaholkoski, Hurl, & Theule, 2016). The effort has been largely successful. Results show that the invention had an impact on child attachment security, a reduction in caregiver depression, and improved self-efficacy for the caregiver (Yaholkoski, Hurl, & Theule, 2016). That means that this method of intervention not only produces desirable results but can also shape the participants to become better at attaining their goals. In some situations then you can say it is a win-win scenario.
In summary, then I would like to conclude that this method is highly participatory. There is no secret that participation has an enormous impact on effectiveness, and that is even seen in leadership styles; whereas, the participatory leadership style has been shown to be one of the most effective leadership styles currently known (Edwards, 2016). There are some factors involved with the process. I doubt we hit them all here, but some important ones are figuring out if it is useful for your needs, understanding that it is a human resources effort and that it can target motivational factors, job satisfaction, and quality of life elements. The method can be implemented in three steps. Step one is training. Step two is taking action on the results produced by the circle. Step three involves closing the loop and providing feedback and follow-up. Comparatively, studies have all shown positive results to include increases in innovation, and in how when used properly they can lead to attainable desirable results.
And so that is it ladies and gentlemen. I fully expected to be here for awhile answering questions, so who wants to go first?
