Six Sigma a Goal-Theoretic Perspective

Topics: Six Sigma, Process capability, Quality management Pages: 19 (6517 words) Published: December 11, 2010
Journal of Operations Management 21 (2003) 193–203

Six Sigma: a goal-theoretic perspective
Kevin Linderman∗ , Roger G. Schroeder1 , Srilata Zaheer2 , Adrian S. Choo3 Curtis L. Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, 3-150 CarlSMgmt Building, 32-19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA Received 18 April 2001; accepted 2 May 2002

Abstract Six Sigma is a phenomenon that is gaining wide acceptance in industry, but lacks a theoretical underpinning and a basis for research other than “best practice” studies. Rigorous academic research of Six Sigma requires the formulation and identification of useful theories related to the phenomenon. Accordingly, this paper develops an understanding of the Six Sigma phenomena from a goal theoretic perspective. After reviewing the goal theory literature, these concepts, when applied to Six Sigma, suggest some propositions for future research. This paper can help serve as a foundation for developing scientific knowledge about Six Sigma. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Quality; Theory; Interdisciplinary; Goals; Six Sigma

1. Introduction The implications of Six Sigma in industry are profound. For example, in 1999 General Electric Company (GEC, 1999) spent over half a billion in Six Sigma initiatives and received over two billion in benefits for the fiscal year (Pande et al., 2000). While Six Sigma has made a big impact on industry, the academic community lags behind in its understanding of Six Sigma. In one of the few academic papers, Schroeder (2000) provides a definition of Six Sigma and discusses the importance of academic research in this area. The question remains: what should aca∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-612-626-8632. E-mail addresses: klinderman@csom.umn.edu (K. Linderman), rschroeder@csom.umn.edu (R.G. Schroeder), szaheer@csom.umn.edu (S. Zaheer), achoo@csom.umn.edu (A.S. Choo). 1 Tel.: +1-612-624-9544. 2 Tel.: +1-612-624-5590. 3 Tel.: +1-612-626-9723.

demics research? Since theory about Six Sigma is lacking there is no basis for research other than “best practice” studies. Therefore, to conduct research on Six Sigma, the starting point must be the formulation and identification of useful theories that are related to the Six Sigma phenomenon. Understanding Six Sigma requires consideration of the role of goals. The name Six Sigma suggests a goal (3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO)). In addition, the improvement of rational systems (Scott, 1987) is governed by both knowledge and motivation. Without knowledge, improvement only occurs through incidental or implicit learning, that is, by chance events that are rarely understood. In Six Sigma, the creation of knowledge occurs through intentional or explicit learning that employs formal improvement methods. Intentional learning requires regulation of actions taken by organizational members. Goals serve as regulators of human action by motivating the actions of organizational members. Thus, improvement goals motivate organizational

0272-6963/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 7 2 - 6 9 6 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 7 - 6

194

K. Linderman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 21 (2003) 193–203

members to engage in intentional learning activities that create knowledge and make improvements. Goal theory is well developed in the behavioral literature. It specifies conditions under which goals can be easily achieved or are found to be difficult or unattainable. For example, goal theory states that goals which are clearly specified and measured result in higher performance than fuzzy or “do-best” goals. Since goal theory is well-established in the management literature, it can play a significant role in understanding quality management in general, and Six Sigma in particular. Miner (1980) rated goal theory “high” in both criterion validity and usefulness in application. Pinder (1984) said, “goal theory has demonstrated more...

References: Amundson, S.D., 1998. Relationships between theory-driven empirical research in operations management and other disciplines. Journal of Operations Management 16 (4), 341–360. Bandura, A., 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist 37, 122–147. Bandura A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive View. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,. Breyfogle, F.W., 1999. Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions Using Statistical Methods, Wiley, NY. Breyfogle, F.W., Cupello, J.M., Meadows, B., 2001. Managing Six Sigma: A Practical Guide to Understanding, Assessing, and Implementing the Strategy That Yields Bottom-Line Success. Wiley, NY. Bryan, J.F., Locke, E.A., 1967. Goal Setting as a means of increasing motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology 51, 274–277. Buller, P.F., Bell Jr., C.H., 1986. Effects of team building and goal setting on productivity: a field experiment. Academy of Management Journal 29, 305–328. Burton, D., 1984. Goal Setting: A secret of success. Swimming World and Junior Swimmer, February, pp. 25–29. Campbell, D.J., 1984. The effects of goal-contingent payment on the performance of complex task. Personnel Psychology 37, 23–40. Campbell, D.J., Gingrich, K.F., 1986. The interactive effects of task complexity and participation on task performance: a field study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 38, 162–180. Chilester, T.R., Grigsby, W.C., 1984. A Meta-Analysis of the Goal Setting Performance Literature. Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. 202–206.
202
K. Linderman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 21 (2003) 193–203 Latham, G.P., Saari, L.M., 1979. Importance of supportive relationships in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology 65, 422–427. Latham, G.P., Yukl, L.M., 1975. Assigned versus participative goal setting with educated and uneducated workers. Journal of Applied Psychology 60, 166–171. Locke, E.A., 1967. Relationship of success and expectation to affect on goal-setting tasks. Psychological Reports 20, 1068. Locke, E.A., Chah, D.O., Harrison, S., Lustgarten, N., 1989. Separating the effects of goal specify from goal level. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43, 270–287. Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Matsui, T., Kakuyama, T., Onglatco, M.L., 1987. Effects of goals and feedback on performance in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology 72, 407–415. Mento, A.J., Steel, R.P., Karren, R.J., 1987. A meta-analytic study of the effects on task performance 1966–1984. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39, 52–83. Montgomery, D.C., 2001. Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, 4th Edition. Wiley, NY. Morgan, M., 1985. Self-monitoring of attained subgoals in private study. Journal of Educational Psychology 77, 623–630. Miner, J.B., 1980. Theories of Organizational Behavior. Dryden, Hinsdale, IL. Oldham, G.R., 1975. Impact of supervisory characteristics on goal acceptance. Academy of Management Journal 18, 461–475. Pande, P.S., Neuman, R.P., Cavangh, R.R., 2000. The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola, and Other Top Companies Are Honing Their Performance, McGraw Hill, NY. Pinder, C.C., 1984. Work Motivation. Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL. Rothkopf, E.Z., Billington, M.J., 1979. Goal guided learning from text: inferring a descriptive processing model from inspection times and eye movements. Journal of Educational Psychology 71, 310–327. Salanik, G.R., 1979. Commitment and control of organizational behavior and belief. In: Staw B.M., Salanik G.R. (Eds.), New Directions In Organizational Behavior. St. Clair Press, Chicago, IL. Schroeder, R.G., 2000. Six Sigma quality improvement: what is Six Sigma and what are the important implications? In: Proceeding of the Fourth Annual International POMS Conference, Seville, Spain, August 27–September 1. Scott, R.W., 1987. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Shalley, C.E., Oldham, G.R., Porac, J.F., 1986. Effects of goal difficulty, goal-setting method, and expected external evaluation on intrinsic motivation. Academy of Management Journal 30, 553–563. Shewhart, W.A., 1931. Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product, D. Van Nostrand, NY. Shewhart, W.A., 1939. Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control. Graduate School of the Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Cole R.E., 1999. Managing Quality Fads, Oxford University Press, NY. Deming, W.E., 1986. Out of a Crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA. Earley, P.C., Connolly, T., Ekegren, G., 1989a. Goals, strategy development, and task performance: some limits on the efficacy of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology 74, 24–33. Earley, P.C., Perry, B.C., 1987. Work plan availability and performance: an assessment of task strategy priming subsequent task completion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39, 279–302. Earley, P.C., Lee, C., Hanson, L.A., 1989. Joint moderating effect of job experience and task component complexity: relations among goal setting, task strategies, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 10, 3–16. Eassa, K., 2000. Six Sigma: a champion’s perspective. In: Proceedings of the International Society of Six Sigma Professionals Leadership Conference, Las Vegas, NV, October 18–20, 2000. Erez, M., Zidon, I., 1984. Effect of goal acceptance on the relationship of goal difficulty to performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 69, 69–78. General Electric Company, 1999. General Electric Company 1999 Annual Report, General Electric Company, Fairfield, CT. Hahn, G., Hill, W., Hoerl, R., Zinkgraf, S., 1999. The impact of Six Sigma improvement—a glimpse into the future of statistics. The American Statistician 53 (3), 208–215. Hall, H.K., Weinberg, R.S., Jackson, A., 1987. Effects of goal specificity, goal difficulty, and information feedback on endurance performance. Journal of Sports Psychology 9, 43–54. Harry, M.J., 1998. Six Sigma: a breakthrough strategy for profitability. Quality Progress 31 (5), 60–64. Harry, M.J., Schroeder, R., 2000. Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the World’s Top Corporations, Doubleday, NY. Hoerl, R.W., 2001. Six Sigma Black Belts: what do they need to know? Journal of Quality Technology 33 (4), 391–435. Hoerl, R.W., 1998. Six Sigma and the future of the quality profession. Quality Progress 31 (6), 35–42. Huber, V.L., 1985a. Comparison on monetary reinforcers and goal setting as learning incentives. Psychological Reports 56, 223– 235. Huber, V.L., 1985b. Effects of task difficulty, goal setting, and strategy on performance of a heuristic task. Journal of Applied Psychology 70, 492–502. Huber, V.L., Neale, M.A., 1987. Effects of self- and competitor goals on performance in an interdependent bargaining task. Journal of Applied Psychology 72, 197–203. Ishikawa, K., 1985. What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kume, H., (Ed.). 1985. Statistical Methods for Quality Improvement (Loftus J.: translator), The Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship, Tokyo, Japan. Kume, H., 1995. Management by quality (Loftus, J.: translator). 3A Corporation, Tokyo, Japan. Latham, G.P., Lee, T.W., 1986. Goal setting. In: Locke E.A. (Ed.), Generalizing From Laboratory Field Settings. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
K. Linderman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 21 (2003) 193–203 Slater, R., 1999. Jack Welch and the GE Way: Management Insights and Leadership Secrets of the Legendary CEO. McGraw-Hill, NY. Tubbs, M.E., 1986. Goal setting: a meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 474– 483. White, F.M., Locke, E.A., 1981. Perceived determinants of high and low productivity in three occupational groups: a critical incident study. Journal of Management Studies 18, 375–387.
203
Wood, R.E., Bandura, A., Bailey, T., 1990. Mechanisms governing organizational performance in complex decision-making environments. Journal of Applied Psychology 90, 181–202. Wood, R.E., Mento, A.J., Locke, E.A., 1987. Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 72, 416–425. Wright, P.M., 1989. A test of the mediating role of goals in the incentive-performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (5), 699–706.
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • six sigma Essay
  • six sigma Essay
  • Six Sigma Essay
  • Six Sigma Essay
  • Essay on Six Sigma
  • Six Sigma Essay
  • Essay on Six Sigma
  • Six Sigma Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free