Quality Management Implementation
One of the most troublesome problems which business executives face is employee resistance to
change. Such resistance may take a number of forms—persistent reduction in output, increase in
the number of “quits” and requests for transfer. There are various reasons why the change will not
work. Even the pettier forms of this resistance can be troublesome.

All too often when managers observe resistance to change, they “explain” it by quoting that
“people resist change” and never look further. Yet changes must continually occur in organization.
This applies with particular force to the all-important “little” changes that constantly take place—
changes in work methods, in routine office procedures, in the location of a machine or a desk, in
personnel assignments and job titles.

Does it mean that business management is forever upset with the difficult job of “forcing” change
and down the throats of resistant people.

The study was conducted by Lester Coch and John R.P. French, Jr. in a clothing factory [1]. The
case includes systematic study of continuous improvement in an organization.

The two researchers worked with four different groups of factory operators. For each of
these four groups a minor change in the work procedure was installed by a different
method, and the results needs to be observed, if any, problems of resistance occurred. The
four experimental groups were roughly matched with respect to efficiency ratings and
degree of cohesiveness; in each group the proposed change modified the established work
procedure to about the same degree.

The work change was introduced to the first group by what the researchers called a “noparticipation”
method. This small group of operators was called into a room where some
staff people told the members that there was a need for a minor methods change in their
work procedures. The staff people then explained the change to the operators in detail, and
gave them the reasons for the change. The operators were then sent back to the job with
instructions to work in accordance with the new method.

The second group of operators was introduced to the work change by a “participationthrough-
representation” method—a variation of the approach used with the third and
fourth groups which turned out to be of little significance.

The third and fourth groups of operators were both introduced to the work change on a
“total participation” basis. All the operators in these groups met with the staff people
concerned. The staff people dramatically demonstrated the need for cost reduction. A
general agreement was reached that some savings could be effected. The groups then
discussed how existing work methods could be improved and unnecessary operations
eliminated. When the new work methods were agreed on, all the operators were trained in
the new methods, and all were observed by the time-study people for purposes of
establishing a new piece rate on the job.

Apply Harrison mode of cultural change and typology and identify which group will work meeting the organizational goals?

Explain conclusion and action plan for implementation of quality management plans?