support evidence of this in their research stating, "Japanese company policy emphasises group work and collective responsibility, rather than the Western emphasis on individual effort and reward." Based on research literature it is clear that there are many disadvantages in relation to quality circles.

When weighing up the evidence from research literature the assessment can be made that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages when considering quality circles. Although quality circles are thought to give employees a high job satisfaction and increase their productivity and efficiency it is clear that in most cases this has a negative impact on organisations. Research literature clearly indicates that in general quality circles will eventually cause conflict with the objectives of management and the organisation. Because of these facts quality circles cannot be considered an effective too

Quality Circles is an efficient instrument to ensure employee contribution to company efforts to advance quality, effectiveness, to minimize cycle time, expenditure and rework.

The objectives of Quality circles are to "identify problems as a group, process suggestions and examine alternatives for improving (at relatively low cost) product and service quality." However it is speculative as to whether quality circles are an effective tool for improving organisations. It has been claimed that quality circles can 'improve quality, efficiency, and work methods and reduce cycle time, wastage and rework. This statement has been welcomed and supported by some however there are those who disagree that quality circles are beneficial. These arguments will be laid out in this paper and then a summation will be made as to which argument is best supported by the research literature for quality circles.

When employees have more responsibility in an organisation they feel better about the work they are doing, productivity increases and so does the quality of work. Quality circles allow employees in small teams to discuss how to improve work conditions and because of this according to some research literature it can have a positive spin off effect in the workplace. The research literature of others detail the disadvantages of quality circles however their accuracy is dismissed by Coates who argues that three factors would make this information relevant in their research, "lack of top management support, lack of middle management involvement and lack of understanding of the quality circles lifecycle."

Brody describes quality circles as 'an ideal management tool as they improve employee satisfaction and efficiency which improves profit.' Some organisations have definitely benefited from the implementation of quality circles. Literature from Porter et al

supports this statement in the case of organisations such as Bell. Evidence from there research into Bell suggested "the people who do the work are also those who best understand it…every team is given the authority to initiate a broad range of actions." Porter et al continues to give evidence stating quality circles are an effective tool in 'committing employees to common goals, having open and honest communication, a climate of trust, a belief that one can influence outcomes and a win-win approach to conflict resolution". When quality circles are implemented properly and employees participate it is felt that not only is quality, efficiency, and work methods improved but there is also a reduction in cycle time, wastage and rework.

Although quality circles have been successful in many organisations research literature suggests many disadvantages associated with them also. The research literature which is written about the advantages according to Wilson is also a speculative matter. The criticism is made that, "those who write about the success of their (quality circles) introduction often have a vested interest in stressing their success rather than documenting their failure".

Stone identifies some problems as to why quality circles fail, 'managers feel threatened, quality circles are forced, high turnover makes them ineffective and employees focus on problems where they have no control.' Quality circles were designed in Japan after the World War two and then the theories were passed through to western civilisation. Because of the differences in the way Western civilisation acts in comparison to that of a Japanese workplace problems will occur when attempting to use quality circles in the west. Bradley and Hill support evidence of this in their research stating, "Japanese company policy emphasises group work and collective responsibility, rather than the Western emphasis on individual effort and reward." Based on research literature it is clear that there are many disadvantages in relation to quality circles.

When weighing up the evidence from research literature the assessment can be made that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages when considering quality circles. Although quality circles are thought to give employees a high job satisfaction and increase their productivity and efficiency it is clear that in most cases this has a negative impact on organisations. Research literature clearly indicates that in general quality circles will eventually cause conflict with the objectives of management and the organisation. Because of these facts quality circles cannot be considered an effective tool

>When employees have more responsibility in an organisation they feel better about the work they are doing, productivity increases and so does the quality of work. Quality circles allow employees in small teams to discuss how to improve work conditions and because of this according to some research literature it can have a positive spin off effect in the workplace. The research literature of others detail the disadvantages of quality circles however their accuracy is dismissed by Coates who argues that three factors would make this information relevant in their research, "lack of top management support, lack of middle management involvement and lack of understanding of the quality circles lifecycle."

Brody describes quality circles as 'an ideal management tool as they improve employee satisfaction and efficiency which improves profit.' Some organisations have definitely benefited from the implementation of quality circles. Literature from Porter et al

supports this statement in the case of organisations such as Bell. Evidence from there research into Bell suggested "the people who do the work are also those who best understand it…every team is given the authority to initiate a broad range of actions." Porter et al continues to give evidence stating quality circles are an effective tool in 'committing employees to common goals, having open and honest communication, a climate of trust, a belief that one can influence outcomes and a win-win approach to conflict resolution". When quality circles are implemented properly and employees participate it is felt that not only is quality, efficiency, and work methods improved but there is also a reduction in cycle time, wastage and rework.

Although quality circles have been successful in many organisations research literature suggests many disadvantages associated with them also. The research literature which is written about the advantages according to Wilson is also a speculative matter. The criticism is made that, "those who write about the success of their (quality circles) introduction often have a vested interest in stressing their success rather than documenting their failure".

Stone identifies some problems as to why quality circles fail, 'managers feel threatened, quality circles are forced, high turnover makes them ineffective and employees focus on problems where they have no control.' Quality circles were designed in Japan after the World War two and then the theories were passed through to western civilisation. Because of the differences in the way Western civilisation acts in comparison to that of a Japanese workplace problems will occur when attempting to use quality circles in the west. Bradley and Hill support evidence of this in their research stating, "Japanese company policy emphasises group work and collective responsibility, rather than the Western emphasis on individual effort and reward." Based on research literature it is clear that there are many disadvantages in relation to quality circles.

When weighing up the evidence from research literature the assessment can be made that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages when considering quality circles. Although quality circles are thought to give employees a high job satisfaction and increase their productivity and efficiency it is clear that in most cases this has a negative impact on organisations. Research literature clearly indicates that in general quality circles will eventually cause conflict with the objectives of management and the organisation. Because of these facts quality circles cannot be considered an effective too

plementation of quality circles. Literature from Porter et al

supports this statement in the case of organisations such as Bell. Evidence from there research into Bell suggested "the people who do the work are also those who best understand it…every team is given the authority to initiate a broad range of actions." Porter et al continues to give evidence stating quality circles are an effective tool in 'committing employees to common goals, having open and honest communication, a climate of trust, a belief that one can influence outcomes and a win-win approach to conflict resolution". When quality circles are implemented properly and employees participate it is felt that not only is quality, efficiency, and work methods improved but there is also a reduction in cycle time, wastage and rework.

Although quality circles have been successful in many organisations research literature suggests many disadvantages associated with them also. The research literature which is written about the advantages according to Wilson is also a speculative matter. The criticism is made that, "those who write about the success of their (quality circles) introduction often have a vested interest in stressing their success rather than documenting their failure".

Stone identifies some problems as to why quality circles fail, 'managers feel threatened, quality circles are forced, high turnover makes them ineffective and employees focus on problems where they have no control.' Quality circles were designed in Japan after the World War two and then the theories were passed through to western civilisation. Because of the differences in the way Western civilisation acts in comparison to that of a Japanese workplace problems will occur when attempting to use quality circles in the west. Bradley and Hill support evidence of this in their research stating, "Japanese company policy emphasises group work and collective responsibility, rather than the Western emphasis on individual effort and reward." Based on research literature it is clear that there are many disadvantages in relation to quality circles.

When weighing up the evidence from research literature the assessment can be made that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages when considering quality circles. Although quality circles are thought to give employees a high job satisfaction and increase their productivity and efficiency it is clear that in most cases this has a negative impact on organisations. Research literature clearly indicates that in general quality circles will eventually cause conflict with the objectives of management and the organisation. Because of these facts quality circles cannot be considered an effective too

ts many disadvantages associated with them also. The research literature which is written about the advantages according to Wilson is also a speculative matter. The criticism is made that, "those who write about the success of their (quality circles) introduction often have a vested interest in stressing their success rather than documenting their failure".

Stone identifies some problems as to why quality circles fail, 'managers feel threatened, quality circles are forced, high turnover makes them ineffective and employees focus on problems where they have no control.' Quality circles were designed in Japan after the World War two and then the theories were passed through to western civilisation. Because of the differences in the way Western civilisation acts in comparison to that of a Japanese workplace problems will occur when attempting to use quality circles in the west. Bradley and Hill support evidence of this in their research stating, "Japanese company policy emphasises group work and collective responsibility, rather than the Western emphasis on individual effort and reward." Based on research literature it is clear that there are many disadvantages in relation to quality circles.

When weighing up the evidence from research literature the assessment can be made that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages when considering quality circles. Although quality circles are thought to give employees a high job satisfaction and increase their productivity and efficiency it is clear that in most cases this has a negative impact on organisations. Research literature clearly indicates that in general quality circles will eventually cause conflict with the objectives of management and the organisation. Because of these facts quality circles cannot be considered an effective too

support evidence of this in their research stating, "Japanese company policy emphasises group work and collective responsibility, rather than the Western emphasis on individual effort and reward." Based on research literature it is clear that there are many disadvantages in relation to quality circles.

When weighing up the evidence from research literature the assessment can be made that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages when considering quality circles. Although quality circles are thought to give employees a high job satisfaction and increase their productivity and efficiency it is clear that in most cases this has a negative impact on organisations. Research literature clearly indicates that in general quality circles will eventually cause conflict with the objectives of management and the organisation. Because of these facts quality circles cannot be considered an effective tool in a majority of organisations.