DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF QUALITY AMONGST MANAGERS AND

FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES IN A SERVICE ORGANIZATION

Vidyaranya B. Gargeya479 Bryan Building

University of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboro, NC 27402 (USA)

Telephone Number: (336) 334-4990Facsimile: (336) 334-4990

E-Mail Address: vbgargey@uncg.edu

Michael HerzingAssistant Director

Guilford County Social Services Department315 W. Lindsay Street

Greensboro, NC 27401 (USA)Telephone Number: (336) 373-7618

Facsimile: (336) 335-5405E-Mail Address: mkherzing@juno.com

and

Maria Aparecida GouvêaUniversidade de São Paulo

Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 908, sala E-110Cidade Universitária

Sao Paolo, Brasil. CEP.005508-900Telephone Number: 55-11-30916044

Facsimile: 55 11 3032 6431E-Mail Address: magouvea@usp.br

Paper to be presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society (POMS)

Chicago, IL, April 29 – May 2, 2005

Please address all correspondence to

Vidyaranya Gargeya

DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONS OF QUALITY AMONGST MANAGERS AND

FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES IN A SERVICE ORGANIZATION

Abstract

It has been very well accepted that differences do exist in perceptions of what quality is.

It is particularly difficult to define quality in an organization that provides a service as compared

to defining the same in an organization that manufactures a product. Not only do different

organizations have distinct definitions for quality, members within the same organization may

have different perceptions of quality. This paper reports on an investigation (through a survey)

on the extent to which top level managers, middle level managers, and front line (direct-care)

employees in a residential care agency differ in their definition of who their customers are.

Detailed statistical analysis is also presented in the paper to understand the differences in the

perceptions of quality amongst the respondents. The article concludes with some

recommendations for service organizations in defining quality.

Key Words: Perceptions of Quality, Service Quality, and Residential Care Agency.

1. Introduction

Coming to terms with a definition of quality is a challenging business. W. Edwards

Deming defined quality as “a function of continuos improvement based on reduction in variation

around the desired output” (Beckford, 1998, p. 85); Philip B. Crosby defined it as “conformance

to requirements (Beckford, 1998, p. 63); while Armand V. Feigenbaum looked upon quality as

customer driven and as “a way of running a business organization” (Beckford, 1998, p. 95). A

review of other quality gurus would reveal even more variations in definition.

Defining quality in any organization would be useful in helping different members of the

organization understand specific dimensions of the service/product that valued by the customers,

external and internal to that organization. It would also aid in reducing the variance in the

perceptions of what needs to be provided as a part of the product/service by the organization.

Furthermore, clear definitions for quality within the organization would increase the accuracy of

measurement, which in turn leads to improving performance. It has been well accepted that

defining quality in an organization that provides a service is more difficult than defining the same

for an organization that produces a manufactured product.

Residential care for foster children has been increasingly under pressure to produce

quality care as evidenced through outcome measures of performance (Lyman and Campbell,

1996). But how do residential care facilities define quality? Do they, like Crosby, look on

quality as a conformance to the requirement set upon them by their customers? Do they buy into

any of the other expert's definition of quality? Or, are they not even looking at the question of

“what is quality”? As the pressure mounts to justify the rising costs of treating at-risk children in

out of home settings, the issue of quality will take on greater importance. Outcome measurement,

while important, may have no meaning if the agency does not build a program with fundamental

agreement on what quality is and how it will be built into the program. The purpose of this paper

to examine how one agency, Elon Homes for Children, in Elon College, North Carolina, defines

quality, and if that definition is shared among executives, middle management, and direct care

employees.

This study would aid managers of service organizations in developing definitions for

service quality, thereby enhancing the effective provision of services by those organizations. The

next section reviews the literature in defining quality. The third section of paper provides the

details of the organization, namely, Elon Homes for Children. The fourth section presents the

findings of the survey of 26 managers and employees in defining quality at that organization.

2

The last section provides some recommendations and concludes with suggestions for similar

service organizations.

2. Review of the Literature

Defining quality in residential care centers for adolescents’ has had extremely limited

research. The idea of providing quality care hasn’t. In fact, there is a plethora of literature on

quality of care and effectiveness of care in residential settings (Berridge and Brodie, 1998;

Northrup, 1994; Reddy and Pfeiffer, 1997; and Wilson and Conroy, 1999;). Unfortunately, the

focus in the literature is on effectiveness via outcomes; thus quality is determined from data after

the child leaves.

There is an area of concern to note with these studies (in addition to their lack of

definition of quality): they were conducted with criteria determined outside of the environment

being studied. For example, Berridge and Brodie (1998) selected thirteen variables (Table 1) and

then determined scores based on their own observations of the environment. While their variables

may appear appropriate, without input from the agency they studied, they may have missed

valuable input and data on a variable they mistakenly left out. They also could have included

variables the agency felt were unimportant, thus impacting their overall study. In essence, by

surveying staff, they could have determined how this agency was defining it’s own “quality of

care”.

Take in Table 1

3

The struggle to define quality must be addressed if we are to develop a measurement

instrument in residential care programs. Smith, Whitehall, and Mraz (1997) posited a crucial

question regarding quality: “If you can’t define it, how can you attain it?” (p. 41). They struggle

with the various quality definitions of Deming, Feigenbaum, and the American Society for

Quality Control. In particular, they feel that ASQC’s definition, that “quality is what the

customer says it is” (p. 42) is appealing, yet flawed because customer’s aren’t always right, they

have unrealistic demands, and suppliers cannot always know what they want. Quality, they say,

has several attributes: features, dependability, performance, value, and affordability. Quality of

care, then, in a residential care setting, may be thought of as only one attribute of the quality

definition.

Roberts and Sergesketter (1993) proposed that customer satisfaction is a workable

definition of quality, but cited Schonberger (1988) in recognizing the many dimensions of

customer service: performance, quick (or timely) response, quick change expertise, features,

reliability, durability, serviceability, aesthetics, perceived quality, humanity, and value (p. 4). In

this light, according to Roberts and Sergesketter, quality is more than conformance to

specifications, but is an entire subset of attributes of customer satisfaction.

With all of the differences and disagreements over what quality is, it is easy to see how

an organization involved in the treatment of at-risk children would focus on outcomes as opposed

to building quality into the process/service. Dale, Cooper, and Wilkenson (1997), noted that

“quality as a concept is quite difficult for many people to grasp and understand, and much

confusion and myth surround it” (p. 2). There is, they go on, “no singly accepted definition of

quality” (p. 2) in today’s business world. Quality can no longer be defined as “I know it when I

see it”, especially in residential treatment centers where government dollars are shrinking and

donors demand results for their dollars.

For quality to have meaning and effect, Dale, Cooper, and Wilkenson (1997) offered the

following points:

4

The person using the word must have a clear and full understanding of its meaning.

The people/audience to whom the communication is directed should have a similar

understanding of quality as the person making the communication.

Within an organization, to prevent confusion and to ensure that everyone in each

department and function is focused on the same objectives, there should be an agreed

definition of quality (p. 2).

In developing the organizations definition, quality can be used qualitatively (non-

technical and subjective) or quantitatively (technical and specific). Tamimi and Sebastianelli

(1996) conducted a study that set out to determine how firms were defining and measuring

quality. Noting that “before quality can be measured it must be defined” (p. 34), they cited

Garvin (1987) who, like Dale, Cooper, and Wilkenson (1997), urged managers to “develop a

clear vocabulary with which to discuss quality as a strategy” (p. 104). How a firm defines quality,

Tamimi and Sebastianelli stated, “drives its improvement efforts and competitive strategy” (p.

34). In response to their questionnaire, the authors were able to develop two lists of quality

definitions, one customer-oriented, the other non-customer oriented. Those lists are displayed

below in Tables 2 and 3.

Take in Tables 2 and 3

The review of the literature shows that there are several definitions for quality; however,

it also shows, that there has been very little work done on understanding how managers and

employees in defining quality in a service organization.

5

3. Details of Organization and Survey

Elon Homes for Children is a large organization with service centers in several parts of

North Carolina. It employs 265 persons agency-wide and serves close to 550 children and

families annually. It has a Child Development Center in Elon College; Therapeutic Foster Care

services in Guilford County, the Sandhills Region, and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Area; Charter

Schools in Charlotte and Elon College; and residential care centers in Charlotte and Elon College.

The mission of the Home is simple: to provide a continuum of care to children and families that

embraces a holistic approach in its treatment. Once an orphanage, Elon Homes for Children now

serves primarily abused and neglected children whom are in the custody of the Department of

Social Services. The focus of this study is the residential site in Elon College, more familiarly

known as the Snyder Campus.

Elon Homes for Children was founded in 1907 as the Christian Orphanage. It was

essentially able to continue in this mode of operation for the next seventy-five to eighty years.

The 1990’s hit the Home fast, hard, and furious. The fee for service rates for placement from

$380 per month to $150 per day. Programming was changed from one with live-in caretakers to

one with shift workers. Therapists were hired to handle mental health needs on campus, and a

school was developed where the children could learn on campus. It seemed as if moneys were

readily available for this expansion in programming, which, incidentally was the cause of the

increase in fees for services.

The changes in programming had come at a heavy price. The agency was operating at a

deficit of nearly $200,000 during fiscal year 1995. Staffing changes demanded more money for

personnel costs, and the Home’s endowment fund was borrowed against heavily to upgrade

buildings. Due to some of these issues, there was a change in leadership at the Home, and the

program had to eventually face some tough decisions. In the spring of 1998, Snyder Campus was

forced to downsize its programs, and closed two of the cottages on its campus. The atmosphere

6

was difficult to work in, and mistrust was everywhere. Over the course of the past 14 months,

much work has gone into rebuilding the trust between administration and direct care staff.

Externally, the agency was feeling pressure from funding sources, in particular

Department of Social Service agencies and donors. The Department of Social Services instituted

mandates that all children in its care will remain in its care for only one year. They were looking

for permanent homes for children within one year. Donors, as previously mentioned, wanted to be

assured that their money was being spent on programs that were effective. Both wanted to see

outcomes that met their individual needs. As a result, in January of 1998, Elon Homes for

Children began collecting data on children who came and left its care. Currently, that data only

provides information on what type of children are being served at the Home. Output information

is available on number of children served, yet true outcome data (percent who were “successful”)

is not yet being calculated. There has been much discussion amongst the leadership of the Home

as to what the actual information will measure. At the root of the problem is the lack of an

agency-wide definition of what quality is for the organization.

Organizationally, Elon Homes for Children is structured in a traditional hierarchical

manner. The President/CEO has a Leadership Team that reports to him, and each Department

Head has middle managers that report to him/her. Reporting to the middle managers are what is

considered, in this report, direct-care staff.

A survey instrument was developed based on the previous work of Tamimi and

Sebastianelli (1996). The questionnaire is given in Appendix I. The questionnaire has four parts:

job title, a question regarding who the respondent felt his/her customers are, a list of job tasks

each respondent was responsible for, and a list of definitions for respondents to identify their

perceptions of how the organization defined quality. In total, there are 21 possible responses

regarding the definition of quality. Respondents were asked to rate each possible definition from

1 to 10, with 10 being the definitions that most closely fit their perceptions of how the agency

defined quality.

7

The “defining quality questionnaire” was distributed to members at all three levels of the

organization. In total, 26 questionnaires were filled out – 7 by Leadership Team members

(including the President/CEO), 7 by “middle managers”, and 12 by direct-care staff. It is

important to note that as an organization, everyone seemed genuinely interested in completing the

survey. It appears that the staff is concerned with quality.

4. Defining Quality at Elon Homes for Children

4.1. Univariate statistical analysis

Results of the questionnaire are shown in Table 4 below comparing each “level” of

employee to the overall agency definition.

Take in Table 4

Below, Table 5 shows the net differences in ranking between the different levels of

employees.

Take in Table 5

8

Together, Table 4 and Table 5 offer interesting insights into defining quality at Elon

Homes for Children. There are clearly some differences in the perceptions of the various levels of

employees regarding how the agency defines quality. Table 4 , however, makes it very clear how

the agency does not define quality. There was very little difference across employee level

regarding the bottom five definitions of quality. The main difference in this area surrounded

leaderships concern with performance at an acceptable price, which makes sense since those

employees are typically involved with those discussions with referring agencies. Even when

looking at the top five overall definitions for the agency, it is clear that there is some general

agreement of where the agency needs to head. This aspect will be further discussed in the

recommendation section of this paper.

Elon Homes for Children is clearly in the service business. It offers unique programming

to a variety of customers. Do its perceived definitions of quality match those identified by

Tamimi and Sebastianelli (1996) in their study? Recalling Table 2, the customer-oriented quality

definitions identified were: meeting or exceeding customers expectations, delighting or pleasing

customers, communicating with customers promptly, providing competitive services to customers

on time, commitment to understanding customers’ requirements accurately, knowing and

understanding customers, and total customer service and satisfaction. At the Home, of those

definitions used in the questionnaire the ranking was 7 th, 15th, 12th, 6th, 2nd, and 8th, respectively.

There appears to be some differences in how employees at the Home are defining quality! Only

one of the Tamimi and Sebastianelli study’s definitions made it into the Homes top 5!

Regarding perceptions of their customers, Table 6 shows the frequency of responses

gathered.

9

Take in Table 6

Nearly 19 percent of the employees at Elon Homes for Children did not identify the

children as their customers. Only 33 percent identified the referring agencies. Employees were

identified as customers by even less – 32 percent.

Across the board, regardless of positions, there was a wide variance of responses to staff

members identification of job responsibilities. Eight out of twelve direct care staff identified

themselves as having responsibility in the area of policy development and implementation.

Conversely only three of seven middle managers identified this as one of their roles! Only three

middle managers and direct care staff total felt they had any marketing responsibilities, while five

members of leadership identified this as a responsibility. This means that less than 30 percent of

the respondents felt any responsibility to market the Home.

4.2. Multivariate statistical analysis

The factor analysis has been applied to the data basis in order to condense or summarize the

information provided by the 21 attributes regarding the definition of quality in a smaller set of

factors. This technique is recommended when there is a great number of variables that present

some degree of correlation among themselves. The correlation between pair of variables are

shown in Table 7. The values more than or equal to 0.60 are highlighted with red color.

Take in Table 7

10

In this study the perceptions of the employees regarding how the agency defines quality were

grouped and reduced to a smaller number of components. Factorial analysis produced 6 factors

which as a whole contributed to explain 81% of the variance of the original data, indicating that

only 19% of the explanation was not maintained with regard to the original variables.

Factor loadings are the correlation of each variable and the factor. Loadings indicate the degree of

correspondence between the variable and the factor , with higher loadings making the variable

representative of the factor (Hair et al., 1998, p. 106). Table 8 presents the loadings after factor

rotation.

Take in Table 8

The labels of the factors can be intuitively obtained through the information in Table 8 based on

variables with higher loadings in each factor. The following labels were obtained through Table

8:

Factor 1: Internal actions in order to meet customers expectations

Factor 2: Rapid and precise customer service

Factor 3: Balance between costs and benefits

Factor 4: Accuracy of information

Factor 5: Continuity of process improvement

Factor 6: Good working conditions

After obtaining these 6 factors, the correspondent factorial scores were produced and included in

the data basis. Therefore, each employee was associated to specific values of each factor.

11

Finally, the multiple correspondence analysis was applied. This technique provided information

regarding the six factors and the three categories of employees. From a spatial map it is possible

to perceive the tendencies of association of quality to factors by employees’ point of view.

Take in Map 1

The numbers in the map have the following meanings:

Level of employee: 1 – top, 2 – middle, 3 – direct care

Factors: 1 – low association with quality, 2 – middle association, 3 – high association

Th interpretation of the map provides the following associations:

Top level of employees: factors 1, 3 and 5

Middle level of employee: factor 4

Direct care: factors 2 and 6.

5. Recommendations and Conclusions

This small study offers several important insights for all staff at Elon Homes for

Children. For leadership, it offers an opportunity to provide direction in mapping out a plan for

quality implementation at the Home. Based on the findings from this questionnaire, there is a

need to make improvements in three key areas: customer identification, job descriptions, and

defining quality. If the agency is serious about quality, a massive educational program needs to

be implemented for all of its employees.

12

Customer Identification

Who are the customers that the staff serves at Elon Homes for Children? The staff are

unclear on this. In an agency which truly is claimed to be built on a mission to serve children and

families, only 81 percent identified children, and only 1 respondent, or 4%, identified parents.

This is a customer service oriented agency, with a poor ability to identify its customers. While the

agency seems to be striving for excellence, per responses to quality definitions, it must become

aware of who it is striving to excellence for. Knowing and understanding customers was ranked

number two on its definition list, yet it appears there is a lack of this very thing. An ongoing

educational program must be created which teaches current staff and incoming staff who

customers are, and why they are customers.

It is also important to note that only 32 percent of respondents identified employees as

customers. The educational program needs to include middle and upper managers as well if this is

to be corrected. This problem of perception is not a direct care level problem only. Quality

program implementation must start at the top and have support from the top. If the management

of Elon Homes for Children does not recognize it’s staff as customers, it will have a hard time

convincing it staff to provide “quality” services. The educational program should be built on the

foundation that the following are customers of Elon Homes for Children: children, families, staff,

referral sources, donors, accrediting bodies, and other public agencies whom help the Home

accomplish its mission. This is a big task, but it must be done if customer focus is to have any

meaning whatsoever.

Job Descriptions

There is wide variance among staff members regarding what their job is. Many

employees have not even seen a job description. Some simply don’t have job descriptions. There

is an element of this that goes back to customer identification and service. Do employees feel like

they are being served as customers if they haven’t even been given a description of what it is that

they are supposed to do?

13

The Human Resource Department is new to the Home. The Director has been in place for

six months. As the department evolves it must make a concerted effort to better identify what it is

that employees are required to do. The end result will be to provide a better quality service to the

customers. Currently, the agency has some schizophrenic qualities to it – it says it knows and

understands customers (even though it clearly doesn’t), it says it has a commitment to

understanding customers requirements exactly (when it really can’t), and it says it defines quality

by meeting or exceeding customers expectations (who are it’s customers?). An active push to

provide job descriptions and (again) educate staff is desperately needed. As a part of the job

description, it should be clear that all staff must be involved in the marketing of the programs.

Again, they must be educated as to what marketing is (it is everything they do) and why it is so

vital (for referrals, fund raising, and public relations – to name a few things).

Defining Quality

How does the leadership of Elon Homes for Children want to define quality? By utilizing

the results of this survey, they now have some options. As a whole, the agencies perceived

definitions may be a good place to start. Despite the inconsistencies of answers to reality, there

are noble choices made by the employees in its list. The top seven definitions are a good starting

ground to work with: striving for excellence, knowing and understanding customers, team work,

continuous process improvement, a job well done, commitment to understanding customers

requirements exactly, and meeting or exceeding customers expectations.

A great place to begin is with those three words: striving for excellence. Leadership could

utilize that slogan as a way to involve the whole of the agency in its process of coming up with a

definition that fits its work. For example, striving for excellence could be the goal of the agency,

with the objectives to get there being: knowing and understanding customers, team work, etc. A

framework is needed with which to build the quality into the program, and everyone has to get

involved in building that framework.

14

The “Nanosecond Nineties”

Cozens (1994) questioned whether residential treatment services can survive in the

“nanosecond nineties”. In applying TQM principles to residential treatment, he found other

organization like Elon Homes for Children struggling with the same issues. He encouraged

leadership to be different – to change the way they do business, not just externally, but internally.

The steps outlined in this plan can lead toward real internal change. In order to create lasting

programs in a field where burnout keeps turnover rates alarmingly high, investments need to be

made in the development of staff and offer them the opportunity to grow. It is, according to

Cozen (1994), vital: “For an RTC (Residential Treatment Center) to survive in an ever increasing

world of change, a means must be found to unfreeze all of the creative potential that exists within

those who work within such settings” (p. 27). Elon Homes for Children is on a precipice. It has

two choices. It can stay there, waiting for the inevitable wind to blow it in any direction, or it can

jump and ride the slope, creating its own direction – deciding its own fate. Which of the two

sounds like more fun?

Elon Homes for Children is not alone. There are several organizations in the service

sector that are in a similar predicament. Managers in the service organization could use the from

this study to develop mechanisms to bridge the gap in perceptions of its employees and managers

in their respective organizations to enhance performance.

References

Beckford, J. (1998) Quality: A Critical Introduction, Routledge, London.

Berridge, B. and Brodie, I. (1998) Children’s Homes Revisited, Kingsley, London.

Cozens, W.R. (1994) “Permanent “White Water” Time: Can Children’s Residential Treatment Survive in the Nanosecond Nineties?” Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 11:1-29.

Dale, B.G., Cooper, C.L., and Wilkenson, A. (1997) Managing Quality and Human Resources: A Guide to Continuos Improvement, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Mass.

15

Garvin, D.A. (1984) “Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality.” Harvard Business Review 65: 101-106.

Hair Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River.

Lyman, R.D. and Campbell, N.R. (1996) Treating Children and Adolescents in Residential and Inpatient Settings, Sage Publications, California.

Northrup, G., Ed. (1994) Managing the Residential Treatment Center in Troubled Times, The Hawthorn Press, Binghamton, NY

Reddy, L.A. and Pfeiffer, S.I. (1997) “Effectiveness of treatment foster-care with children and adolescents: a review of outcome studies”. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, May 19: 581-588.

Roberts, H.V. and Sergesketter, B.F. (1993) Quality is Personal: A Foundation for Total Quality Management, The Free Press, New York.

Schonberger, R. (1988) Building a Chain of Customers, The Free Press, New York.

Smith, J.A., Whitehall, F., and Mraz, S.J. (1997) “In search of quality: it’s really dependability we’re after”. Machine Design, September 11: 41-45.

Tamimi, N. and Sebastianelli, R. (1996) “How firms define and measure quality”. Production and Inventory Management Journal, Third Quarter: 34-39.

Wilson, L. and Conroy, J. (1999) “Satisfaction of Children in Out-of-Home Care”. Child Welfare, January-February: 53–68.

16

Table 1 Quality of Care Variables

1. Quality of relationships between staff and young people2. Degree of staff involvement with young people3. Child-centered or institution oriented4. Adequacy of educational environment5. Care for minority ethnic groups6. Young people’s involvement7. Control problems8. Staff morale9. Focus of staff concerns on narrow or wider issues10. Emphasis on family contact11. Community links12. Relationships with social workers13. Relationships with external professionals

Source: Berridge, B. and Brodie, I. (1998) Children’s Homes Revisited, Kingsley, London: p.143.

Table 2Customer-Oriented Quality Definitions

Meeting or exceeding customers’ expectations Delighting or pleasing customers Communicating with customers promptly Providing competitive services to customers on time Commitment to understanding customers’ requirements accurately Knowing and understanding customers Total customer service and satisfactionSource: Tamimi, N. and Sebastianelli, R. (1996) “How firms define and measure quality”. Production and Inventory Management Journal, Third Quarter: 35.

17

Table 3Non-Customer-Oriented Quality Definitions

Efficiency Quality of workmanship Providing a good usable product Reliability Eliminating waste Doing it right the first time Striving for excellence Perfection Speed of delivery A job well done Compliance to policies and procedures Performance at an acceptable price Consistency Accuracy of information Continuous process improvement Degree to which a compelling place is created to shop and work Aesthetics Team Work Eliminating errors Dependable product supportSource: Tamimi, N. and Sebastianelli, R. (1996) “How firms define and measure quality”. Production and Inventory Management Journal, Third Quarter 35.

18

Table 4Elon Homes for Children Quality Definitions and Rankings

Definition Agency LeadershipMiddle-Managers

Direct-Care Employees

Striving for excellence 1 1 6(T) 1Knowing and understanding customers 2 2(T) 4(T) 2(T)Team work 3 4(T) 4(T) 2(T)Continuous process improvement 4 15(T) 1 4A job well done 5 2(T) 6(T) 8Commitment to understanding customers requirements exactly

6 7 8 5(T)

Meeting or exceeding customers expectations

7 4(T) 11(T) 11(T)

Good working conditions 8(T) 12 2 13Total customer service and satisfaction 8(T) 6 3 14Quality of workmanship 10(T) 8(T) 11(T) 11(T)Compliance to policies and procedures 10(T) 10 10 10Communicating with customers promptly

12 11 9 9

Accuracy of information 13 17 14(T) 5(T)Consistency 14 15(T) 16 7Delighting or pleasing customers 15 13(T) 14(T) 15Efficiency 16 20 11(T) 16Performance at an acceptable price 18(T) 8(T) 18 19(T)Conformance to specifications 18(T) 18(T) 20 17Doing it right the first time 19 18(T) 17 19(T)The level of some measurable product/service attribute

20 13(T) 19 18

Perfection 21 21 21 21

N=26

Table 5Net Differences in Rankings

Grouping Net Differences

Leadership/Middle Managers 84Leadership/Direct Care Employees 86Middle Managers/Direct Care Employees 69

19

Table 6Frequency of responses: Customers served

Customers Noted ResponsesStudents/Children in care 22DSS/Referring agencies 9Employees 7Donors 2Board of Directors 2President/CEO 1Department of Public Instruction 1Parents 1Churches 1N=26

Table 7Correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1 1.00

2 0.40 1.00

3 0.61 0.18 1.00

4 0.27 0.73 0.24 1.00

5 0.45 0.15 0.81 0.37 1.00

6 0.48 0.53 0.35 0.57 0.41 1.00

7 0.56 0.67 0.41 0.55 0.32 0.65 1.00

8 0.21 0.77 0.02 0.65 0.13 0.58 0.65 1.00

9 0.33 0.38 0.16 0.18 0.14 0.24 0.20 0.29 1.00

10 0.27 0.61 0.18 0.60 0.27 0.20 0.56 0.51 0.47 1.00

11 0.52 0.55 0.22 0.37 0.04 0.28 0.54 0.38 0.33 0.50 1.00

12 -0.08 0.03 -0.26 0.19 -0.10 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.20 0.16 0.07 1.00

13 0.30 0.55 0.51 0.72 0.49 0.48 0.56 0.57 0.30 0.49 0.20 0.17 1.00

14 0.04 0.19 0.12 0.35 0.19 0.27 0.27 0.13 -0.02 0.09 -0.05 0.66 0.47 1.00

15 0.55 0.55 0.62 0.66 0.48 0.50 0.62 0.49 0.32 0.46 0.62 0.06 0.69 0.27 1.00

16 0.49 0.55 0.41 0.59 0.46 0.64 0.62 0.51 0.35 0.52 0.35 0.09 0.73 0.34 0.67 1.00

17 0.17 0.63 0.15 0.58 0.17 0.59 0.65 0.74 0.33 0.50 0.17 0.24 0.77 0.41 0.53 0.75 1.00

18 0.44 0.47 0.60 0.35 0.48 0.42 0.43 0.29 0.43 0.34 0.25 0.05 0.62 0.30 0.57 0.68 0.53 1.00

19 0.28 0.60 0.27 0.47 0.32 0.39 0.52 0.39 0.19 0.33 0.20 0.02 0.53 0.29 0.45 0.62 0.55 0.55 1.00

20 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.16 0.50 0.36 0.23 0.38 -0.09 0.14 -0.25 0.22 0.11 0.20 0.24 0.23 0.32 0.37 1.00

21 0.41 0.49 0.33 0.32 0.23 0.35 0.43 0.38 0.41 0.19 0.30 -0.20 0.41 0.12 0.40 0.22 0.19 0.36 0.42 0.72 1.00

20

Table 8Factor loadings

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 0.09 0.51 0.30 0.64 -0.01 0.07

2 0.78 0.00 0.22 0.36 -0.04 0.19

3 0 0.92 0.17 0.20 -0.08 0.01

4 0.79 0.20 -0.05 0.26 0.15 0

5 0.16 0.87 0.02 0.04 -0.01 0

6 0.57 0.27 0.43 0.23 0.14 -0.20

7 0.66 0.24 0.26 0.47 0.06 -0.08

8 0.86 -0.12 0.16 0.21 -0.04 0.05

9 0.15 0.08 0.28 0.20 0.07 0.86

10 0.60 0.12 -0.28 0.36 -0.04 0.48

11 0.25 0.02 0.05 0.87 -0.03 0.20

12 0.07 -0.18 -0.22 0.09 0.90 0.20

13 0.71 0.48 0.09 0 0.23 0.16

14 0.26 0.18 0.11 -0.09 0.88 -0.12

15 0.50 0.52 0.07 0.47 0.11 0.10

16 0.68 0.47 0.09 0.11 0.16 0.17

17 0.86 0.12 0.10 -0.08 0.24 0.16

18 0.38 0.62 0.23 0 0.14 0.40

19 0.60 0.28 0.32 -0.09 0.06 0.12

20 0.11 0.11 0.94 0.02 -0.04 0.09

21 0.23 0.15 0.76 0.21 -0.09 0.20

Map 1 Association between categories of employees and factors

Category Quantifications

Dimension 1

1,51,0,50,0-,5-1,0

Dim

ensi

on 2

1,0

,5

0,0

-,5

-1,0

-1,5

Factor 6

Factor 5

Factor 4

Factor 3

Factor 2

Factor 1

LEVEL

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3 2

1

3

2

1

3,00

2,00

1,00

21

Appendix I

DEFINING QUALITYQUESTIONNAIRE

I. Job Title:

II. Who are your customers?

III. Which of these tasks from your job description are you responsible for? Check all that apply.

Direct supervision of children in care Policy implementation Policy development Direction and vision of the agency Team participation Programmatic planning Marketing Case management Fund raising Discharge planning Medication administration Behavioral interventions Fiscal planning and control Educational planning and implementation Staff development Personnel decisions Board relations Community relations Compliance with licensing/accrediting bodies Church relations Treatment planning Admissions and referrals Quality assurance Activity planning Program supervision Facility upkeep Volunteer relations Budgeting

22

IV. How do you perceive your organization defines quality? Rate from 0 to 10, with 10 being the

definitions which best fit your perceptions.

Efficiency Quality of workmanship Doing it right the first time Striving for excellence Perfection A job well done Compliance to policies and procedures Team Work Good working conditions Consistency Accuracy of information Continuous process improvement Meeting or exceeding customers expectations Delighting or pleasing customers Communicating with customers promptly Commitment to understanding customer’s requirements accurately Knowing and understanding customers Total customer service and satisfaction Conformance to specifications Performance at an acceptable price The level of some measurable product/service attribute Other (specify)

23