Transcript Six Sigma: A goal-theoretic perspective (PDF Available)

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: [email protected]
(K. Linderman), [email protected] (R.G. Schroeder),
[email protected] (S. Zaheer), [email protected]
(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 scientific validity to date than any
other approach on motivation . . . Moreover, the evidence indicates that it probably holds more promise
as a motivational tool for managers than any other
approach”.
This paper develops an understanding of the Six
Sigma phenomenon from a goal-theoretic perspective.
It begins with a brief introduction to the Six Sigma
methodology in order to establish a basis of definition and a point of departure. Then an examination of
the goal theory literature provides the foundation for
propositions about how Six Sigma is related to goal
theory. The paper wraps up by providing conclusions
and future research directions.
2. Six Sigma
Six Sigma is a concept that was originated by Motorola Inc. in the USA in about 1985. At the time,
they were facing the threat of Japanese competition
in the electronics industry and needed to make drastic improvements in their quality levels (Harry and
Schroeder, 2000). Six Sigma was a way for Motorola
to express its quality goal of 3.4 DPMO where a defect opportunity is a process failure that is critical to
the customer). Motorola set this goal so that process
variability is ±6 S.D. from the mean (Breyfogle et al.,
2001, p. 39). They further assumed that the process
was subject to disturbances that could cause the process mean to shift by as much as 1.5 S.D. off the target
(Montgomery, 2001, p. 23). Factoring a shift of 1.5
S.D. in the process mean then results in a 3.4 DPMO
(see Montgomery p. 24 and Breyfogle et al., 2001,
p. 40). This goal was far beyond normal quality levels
and required very aggressive improvement efforts. For
example, 3 sigma results in a 66,810 DPMO or 93.3%
process yield, while Six Sigma is only 3.4 DPMO and
99.99966% process yield (these computations assume
a 1.5 S.D. shift in the process mean). Fig. 1 shows
the relationship between DPMO and Process Sigma
assuming the normal distribution.
Not all processes should operate at the Six Sigma
level. The appropriate level will depend on the
Fig. 1. Defect rate (DPMO) versus Process Sigma Level.
K. Linderman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 21 (2003) 193–203
strategic importance of the process and the cost of the
improvement relative to the benefit. If a process is at
the two or three sigma level, it will be relatively easy
and cost effective to reach the four sigma level. However, to reach five or Six Sigma will require much
more effort and more sophisticated statistical tools.
The effort and difficulty increases exponentially as
the Process Sigma increases. Ultimately, the return on
investment for the improvement effort and the strategic importance of the process will determine whether
the process should be improved and the appropriate
target sigma level as a goal.
Six Sigma has not been carefully defined in either the practitioner or academic literature (Hahn
et al., 1999). This has resulted in some confusion,
since each author provides a different definition. In
an attempt to develop the concepts and principles
underlying Six Sigma, the following definition is
offered:
Six Sigma is an organized and systematic method
for strategic process improvement and new product
and service development that relies on statistical
methods and the scientific method to make dramatic
reductions in customer defined defect rates.
This definition highlights the importance of improvements based on the customer’s definition of a
defect. A key step in any Six Sigma improvement effort is determining exactly what the customer requires
and then defining defects in terms of their “critical
to quality” parameters. From a goal setting perspective, Six Sigma advocates establishing goals based on
customer requirements, not on internal considerations.
Using customer requirements is certainly not something that is unique to Six Sigma, but it is important
from a goal theory perspective.
Six Sigma also uses unique metrics including Process Sigma measurements, critical-to-quality metrics,
defect measures and 10× improvement measures
(Hahn et al., 1999; Harry, 1998; Hoerl, 1998). One of
the first steps in the improvement process is to measure the current Process Sigma. This is done by defining current process defects in customer terms (critical
to quality metrics), these measures are converted to
DPMO and then to the current Process Sigma. As a
rough guideline, the 10× improvement rule is often
used to establish the goal for defect reduction. For
example, if the baseline data from the process has
195
a DPMO of 66,000, then the 10× rule sets the improvement goal at 6600 DPMO. Use of these unique
metrics helps to clarify goals and make them explicit.
However, sometimes baseline data may not exist for
the process, as often occurs with a new process or
product, which makes it difficult to establish explicit
goals.
As the above definition notes, Six Sigma uses a
structured method, whether the task is process improvement or new product design. In the case of process improvement, the method is patterned after the
plan, do, check, act (PDCA) cycle (Shewhart, 1931,
1939). One popular method uses define, measure, analyze, improve and control (DMAIC) as the five steps
in process improvement. A somewhat different set of
steps called Design for Six Sigma is used for radical
or incremental product design (define, measure, analyze, design and verify). Whatever method is chosen,
however, it is important that the method be carefully
followed and a solution not offered until the problem
is clearly defined. Data and objective measurement
is critical at each step of the method. The standard
statistical quality tools are incorporated into the structured method as needed. However, Six Sigma guidelines demonstrate an integration of proper tools at
each step of the method (Breyfogle, 1999; Ishikawa,
1985; Kume, 1985, 1995; Hoerl, 1998). This careful
integration of tools with the methods is unique to
Six Sigma.
Six Sigma uses a variety of improvement specialists
to achieve its goals, often referred to as Black Belts,
Master Black Belts, Green Belts and Project Champions. Full-time Black Belts lead improvement projects
and typically receive 4 weeks of training. Master
Black Belts receive even more training, and generally
serve as instructors and internal consultants. Green
Belts are part-time improvement specialists that receive less training since they provide supporting roles
on the improvement projects. Finally, Project Champions who identify strategically important projects for
the improvement teams and provide resources, typically receive an orientation to Six Sigma rather than
detailed training. As can be seen, intensive and differentiated training is an integral part of the Six Sigma
approach.
Now that Six Sigma has been defined the main
tenets of goal theory are considered which forms a
basis for understanding Six Sigma.
196
K. Linderman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 21 (2003) 193–203
3. Six Sigma and goal theory
Goal theory provides a theoretical basis for understanding the relationship between goal setting and
goal achievement. Numerous concepts have been
developed in the literature to understand this relationship (Locke and Latham, 1990). This research will
focus on the well-established concepts that relate to
Six Sigma in developing a goal-theoretic perspective
of Six Sigma.
3.1. Goals and performance
Research in goal theory shows a strong relationship
between goal setting and performance. For example, White and Locke (1981) studied a multinational
company and found goal setting correlated with performance for managers, clerical workers, and professionals. Burton (1984) also reported that swimmers
who received training in goal setting significantly improved their performance over swimmers who did not
receive training. These studies illustrate the importance that goal setting has on performance in a wide
range of settings.
Numerous studies also reveal a positive relationship between goal difficulty and performance. Locke
(1967) showed that the performance of subjects with
hard goals were 250% higher than those with easy
goals. Locke et al. (1990) reviewed over 170 research
papers on goal difficulty and performance. They
found a positive relationship between goal difficulty
and performance in over 90% of the articles reviewed.
Locke and Latham (1990) summarize the research
on goal difficulty and performance and conclude that
in general difficult goals result in increased levels
of performance, however, a drop in performance occurs if goals become too difficult. That is, difficult
goals increase performance, however, if they become
too difficult performance can actually decrease. This
suggests the importance of maintaining a balance
between setting challenging goals while at the same
time making goals attainable.
Goal specificity is also important to performance.
Goal theory suggests that specific goals result in higher
levels of performance than vague non-quantitative
goals such as do-best goals (Locke et al., 1990)—
do-best goals are goals that are implied by the task
given to the subject or where the subject is told to do
the best that they can. Several meta-analyses confirm
a positive relationship between specific challenging goals as opposed to vague goals (Chilester and
Grigsby (1984), Tubbs (1986), Mento et al. (1987),
and Wood et al. (1987)).
Six Sigma is known for employing challenging process improvement goals. Practitioners have noted that,
“A clear goal is the center piece of Six Sigma. It is an
extremely challenging goal, but still believable, unlike
past campaigns for zero defects” (Pande et al., 2000).
Prior quality thought leaders have been critical of the
use of arbitrary goals (Deming, 1986). However, the
tenets of goal theory suggest that goals can play an
effective role in quality management.
Goal setting often begins in the early phases of a Six
Sigma improvement project, when data is collected
from the process. This allows for the computation of
baseline process performance measures like DPMO
and/or Process Sigma, which becomes the basis for establishing explicit goals. Sometimes quantitative data
may not exist for the process, as often occurs with
a new process, and setting specific quantitative goals
becomes more challenging. In this situation managers
should seek out alternative methods to establish explicit goals, possibly using financial or customer satisfaction data to set goals rather than relying on do-best
goals. The role of explicit goals and performance suggests the following proposition.
Proposition 1a. Six Sigma projects that employ specific challenging goals result in a greater magnitude
of improvement than projects that do not employ specific challenging goals.
Fig. 2 illustrates the relationship between specific
challenging goals employed in Six Sigma and performance. The effects of training and goal commitment
shown in Fig. 2 are discussed below.
As noted earlier, when goals become too difficult a
drop-off in performance can occur (Erez and Zidon,
1984). If individuals view the goal as unattainable they
will often exert little effort, which decreases performance. Six Sigma sets very challenging goals, which
may run the risk of being viewed as unattainable.
However, training in process improvement tools and
methods mitigates the difficulty of attaining challenging improvement goals. As a result, training reduces
the uncertainty involved in achieving challenging
K. Linderman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 21 (2003) 193–203
197
Fig. 2. Explicit Six Sigma goals and performance.
improvement goals and makes the goals more achievable. This increases the commitment of organizational
members in attaining the goals since they are now
viewed as more “realistic” (Bandura, 1982, 1986).
Six Sigma organizations provide extensive training
programs in process improvement methods and tools
(Hoerl, 2001). The extent of Six Sigma training reduces the uncertainty associated with improvement
projects and increases the commitment of the organizational members. Fig. 2 indicates a relationship between training and goal commitment, which suggests
the following proposition.
Proposition 1c emphasizes the importance of obtaining baseline data to set explicit goals. Without specific goals, performance variability increases which
fosters the chance of two types of errors. Either not
enough improvement occurs to sufficiently increase
customer satisfaction, or improvement efforts exceed
what is required to satisfy the customer. Both situations fail to obtain the optimal investment of time
and effort in the improvement endeavor. This suggests the importance of collecting baseline data, and
more broadly the importance of having a data oriented
culture.
Proposition 1b. Training in Six Sigma increases goal
commitment.
3.2. Goals and task strategies
Interestingly, Locke et al. (1989) found that specific goals also reduce performance variance. That
is, specific quantitative goals tend to result in less
deviation from the target level of performance than
do-best goals. This is because goal specificity reduces
the interpretive latitude as to the intention of the
goal. When goals are vague, individuals have varying
interpretations of when actual performance matches
desired performance, resulting in an increased level of
performance variability. In some Six Sigma projects it
is difficult to get historical data to calculate a baseline
DPMO or Process Sigma. In this case a target DPMO
or Process Sigma cannot be determined for goal setting
purposes. This suggests the following proposition.
Proposition 1c. Six Sigma projects that do not have
explicit goals result in more varied magnitudes of
improvement than those with explicit improvement
goals.
Task strategies are methods or approaches to perform a task that involve creative innovation and
conscious problem solving. Goal theory research
suggests that individuals given a difficult goal often
develop task strategies on their own. Buller and Bell
(1986) found that miners were more likely to engage in quality-improving behaviors after being given
quality goals. Campbell and Gingrich (1986) found
that computer programmers with goals on a complex
task often sought information from supervisors on
how to go about writing the programs. That is, they
sought out task strategies from their supervisors. Interestingly, some research indicates that specific hard
goals can lead to poor task strategies. Earley et al.
(1989a) found that untrained subjects with do-best
goals performed better than those with specific, hard
goals. The untrained subjects with hard goals often
switch strategies as compared to the subjects with
do-best goals. This suggests that training can influence the quality of task strategies developed. This is
198
K. Linderman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 21 (2003) 193–203
more important for complex tasks since they require
more complex strategies. Kanfer et al. (1988) studied air traffic controllers (complex task) and found
that goals improved performance when they received
training. In addition, they found that goals actually
reduced performance when subjects did not receive
training.
Six Sigma organizations employ problem solving
tools and structured improvement methods based on
the scientific method. This comprehensive methodology takes the complex task of process improvement
and breaks it down into elementary components, which
in turn reduces task complexity. As a result, it is essential that Six Sigma organizations properly use the
methods and tools. Often improvement team members
jump to conclusions without properly following all
the steps in the improvement process. This suggests
that Six Sigma leaders should identify mechanisms
that promote proper application of the tools and methods. One Six Sigma organization has a Project Evaluation System (Eassa, 2000) that performs a post project
review of improvement projects to assess appropriate use of tools and methods. In addition, several Six
Sigma organizations use computerized tracking software, such as personal excellence tool/management
excellence tool (PETMET), which monitors the steps
and tools used in the improvement project. These types
of mechanisms promote the proper application of the
tools and methods that help reduce task complexity (see Fig. 2). The use of the structured method
suggests the following proposition, since goals tend
to work better for less complex tasks (Wood et al.,
1990).
Proposition 2a. The use of a structured method increases performance on complex tasks.
Six Sigma organizations also provide extensive
training to insure proper use and understanding of
the methodology. This further reduces the task complexity involved in complex process improvement
projects and promotes commitment from organizational members. Fig. 2 illustrates the moderating
effect of training on performance. Most Six Sigma
organizations also require employees to work on
improvement projects while they receive training.
Training occurs in a hands-on fashion where instructors explain concepts followed by participants
applying concepts to their improvement projects.
This training format ensures that participants not
only understand concepts of Six Sigma (declarative
knowledge), but also understand how to apply these
concepts (procedural knowledge). Knowing how to
apply Six Sigma concepts makes certain that employees can handle challenging problems encountered
in improvement projects. This mode of training is
consistent with goal theory, since it ensures that employees know how to apply the concepts of Six Sigma
to complex problems, and suggests the following
proposition.
Proposition 2b. Employees that receive Six Sigma
training perform better on complex tasks than employees that do not receive training.
However, training is not effective for simple tasks;
in fact Earley et al. (1989) noted that training actually
decreases performance for simple tasks. As a result,
training may not create substantial benefits for simple improvement tasks, sometimes called the “low
hanging fruit”. Six Sigma organizations investing in
extensive training on improvement specialist should
focus their improvement efforts on complex challenging problems. The amount of training received
should be proportional to the degree of involvement
in complex tasks. Organizations that provided a differentiated level of training for Black Belts, Green
Belts, and Project Champions reinforces this perspective. In contrasts, other quality management programs
deliver standardized training to everyone—one size
fits all. Standardized training is consistent with the
notion that quality is everyone’s job. Goal theory
may provide an alternative perspective, consider the
following proposition.
Proposition 2c. Differentiated training based on the
degree of involvement in the complexity of the improvement tasks increases performance.
These propositions suggest the importance of instituting training in process improvement tools and
methods. Organizational leaders must be aware of the
importance of training, and the effect it has on goal
setting. Furthermore, training becomes more important as the complexity involved in the improvement
activities increases.
K. Linderman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 21 (2003) 193–203
3.3. Goal and commitment
Goal commitment refers to the determination to
reach a goal or resistance to changing a goal at a
later time. This differs from goal acceptance, which
refers to an initial agreement with the goal (Locke and
Latham, 1990). Erez and Zidon (1984) found a significant drop-off in performance as goal commitment
declined in response to more difficult goals. Their
research showed a dramatic drop-off in performance
when goal commitment became negative on a bipolar
scale (positive indicates acceptance and negative indicates rejection).
Wright (1989) concluded that commitment moderates goal level difficulty and performance. That is,
setting difficult goals does not improve performance
much when commitment is low. However, they find
that goal level does influence performance when commitment is high.
Research on commitment suggests that organizational change efforts require a high level of commitment from organizational members. Therefore, it is
desirable to understand the factors that promote or deter commitment. Researchers have identified some of
the following factors: authority, peer influence, public awareness, incentives, rewards, and punishment
(Locke and Latham, 1990).
Implementation of Six Sigma is often driven from
the senior leadership of the organization. The CEOs
at Motorola, AlliedSignal, GEC, and Seagate Technology all led the Six Sigma implementation efforts.
GEC and Seagate Technology made it very clear
to employees that continued success and promotion
within the organization required their endorsement
and support of Six Sigma. In fact, Jack Welch created a mandate for Six Sigma by telling his management team to “get on board, or get out” (Slater,
1999). Organizational leaders provide a critical role
in building goal commitment (Latham and Lee, 1986;
Latham and Saari, 1979; Salanik, 1979; Latham
and Yukl, 1975; Oldham, 1975). Organizations not
able to secure a mandate from senior leadership
will have a difficult time implementing Six Sigma,
which suggests the following proposition (also see
Fig. 2).
Proposition 3a. Goal commitment increases with a
mandate from senior leadership.
199
The use of peer influence also contributes to commitment of Six Sigma by the organizational members
(Matsui et al., 1987; Bandura, 1986; Shalley et al.,
1986). Champions, Black Belts, and Green Belts serve
as role models and influence peers, which contribute to
increasing the commitment level for Six Sigma goals.
The following proposition indicates the importance of
improvement specialists, and further suggests that organizations that do not use improvement specialists
will have a lower level of goal commitment.
Proposition 3b. Improvement specialists (Champions, Master Black Belts, and Black Belts) serve as
role models for Six Sigma improvement efforts that increase goal commitment.
Incentives and rewards also contribute to commitment of goals (Campbell, 1984, Huber, 1985a, Wright,
1989, Howard et al., 2001). Black Belts at GEC and
Seagate Technology get larger bonuses and more attractive promotions for their efforts in fulfilling the
Six Sigma goals of the organization.
Proposition 3c. Organizations that have special rewards and incentives for Six Sigma professionals have
a higher level of goal commitment than those that do
not.
3.4. Goals and effort, persistence and direction
Several studies indicate that goals regulate effort
expenditure. Bryan and Locke (1967) found that
subjects with specific, hard goals worked at a faster
rate than those with a do-best goal. Earley and Perry
(1987) conducted a business simulation and found
that specific hard goals led to higher ratings of effort than do-best goals. In general difficult goals
result in greater expenditure of effort, which in turn
increases performance to the point of diminishing
returns. It follows that when Six Sigma improvement
projects use specific quantitative improvement goals
like a challenging DPMO reduction or Process Sigma
improvement, more effort will be expended. This
suggests the following proposition as illustrated in
Fig. 3.
Proposition 4a. Specific Six Sigma goals result in
more team member effort than vague goals.
200
K. Linderman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 21 (2003) 193–203
Fig. 3. Mediating variables between Six Sigma goals and performance.
Persistence is effort maintained over time. Huber
(1985b) found that subjects with hard goals on a computer maze task worked longer to complete the task
than subjects given do-best goals. Hall et al. (1987)
found that students compressed a hand dynamometer
longer if they had specific, hard goals than do-best
goals. Huber and Neale (1987) found that subjects engaged in a bargaining task were less willing to compromise and thus held out losnger than subjects given
a do-best goal. This research indicates that more challenging goals keep people working longer at tasks than
other goals. This suggests that challenging goals used
in Six Sigma motivate teams to work longer so that
the desired results are obtained. Fig. 3 illustrates the
following proposition.
than those with goals. Students with goals had more
direction in their study efforts than students without
goals. They also found that students with specific
learning goals learned material that was irrelevant
to their learning goals less well than students who
were not given learning goals. That is, goals provided
students with a focal point to which they directed
their learning efforts. Six Sigma project goals such
as a target Process Sigma or DPMO should focus
process improvement team members on goal-relevant
activities and direct them away from irrelevant activities. This may create a focal point where team
members are focused on achieving the target improvement levels. Fig. 3 illustrates the following
proposition.
Proposition 4b. Specific Six Sigma goals result in
more team member persistence than vague goals.
Proposition 4c. Specific Six Sigma goals increase
team member direction on activities to accomplish improvement objectives than do-best goals.
Effort and persistence must be directed toward
some activity. Goals have two relatively automatic
directional effects. “First, they orient the individual
toward goal-relevant activities and away from goalirrelevant ones. Second, they activate stored knowledge and skills that the individual possesses that are
perceived relevant to the task” (Locke and Latham,
1990). Morgan (1985) found that students with study
time goals actually spent more time studying than
students who did not have study time goals. Rothkopf
and Billington (1979) found that students without specific learning goals learned more irrelevant material
The above propositions (4a–c) indicate the importance of Project Champions in setting explicit project
improvement goals. This will result in more effort,
persistence, and direction that in turn should increase
performance. In addition, Project Champions should
select critical projects to insure that improvement
teams are “doing the right things”. Since goals create
focal point, team members may not consider whether
they are doing the “right things”. Instead they are focused on “doing things right” in order to accomplish
their goals.
K. Linderman et al. / Journal of Operations Management 21 (2003) 193–203
4. Conclusions
Six Sigma improvement projects often use explicit
goals to motivate performance. These types of goals
can create the illusion that goal setting is solely a technical issue, where managers simply set goals on the
basis of the desired level of performance they want
to achieve. However, goal theory reveals that effective goal setting requires behavioral considerations. If
goal setting were purely a technical issue, then setting difficult goals would always result in improved
performance. Goal theory indicates that this is not the
case. Goals perceived as too difficult by organizational
members can result in lower levels of commitment,
which in turn decreases performance. Goal theory illuminates the significance of behavioral influences on
goal setting, and more broadly suggests the importance of social and psychological considerations in understanding the Six Sigma phenomena. Organizational
leaders must be aware that successful deployment of
Six Sigma requires not only technical understanding,
but also behavioral insight.
Goals can also alter organizational members’ perceptions about the magnitude of change possible.
Organizations often form perceptions about performance frontiers and how much improvement is possible. Appropriate use of goals can alter organizational
members perceptions of the performance frontier. For
example, John Young, CEO of Hewlett Packard, set
a goal of 10-fold improvements in hardware quality
over the next decade in the early 1980’s (Cole, 1999).
This goal was needed to shock employees out of their
belief that HP was a quality leader and served to get
them to question their basic ways of working and
improving. Similarly, Six Sigma’s use of challenging
goals helps alter organizational members’ perceptions
of performance frontiers. Effective use of goals not
only changes the behaviors of organizational members, but also alters their perceptions about how much
change is possible.
Studying the Six Sigma phenomena from a goaltheoretic perspective also provides opportunities to
develop more insights into goal theory. Previously,
goal theory has not considered the role of structured
improvement methods. Goal theory has been developed in the context of day-to-day management of
organizations and routine decision making. This research hypothesizes that structured methods reduce
201
task complexity, which in turn makes it easier to
achieve performance objectives. In addition, training
in structured improvement methods is required to
achieve performance objectives. The Goal theory literature could benefit from a better understanding of how
structured methods influence goals and performance.
Our future research will focus on refining and testing the propositions in this paper. In addition, our
theoretical lens (Amundson, 1998) for understanding
Six Sigma can be expanded to integrate other management theories. In particular, it may be useful to understand Six Sigma from a Knowledge Management
perspective. This presents interesting questions about
how Goal theory could be integrated with Knowledge
Management to better understand the Six Sigma phenomena. Clearly, there are a wide variety of interesting research questions in Six Sigma. As practitioners
continue to implement Six Sigma programs, it will be
incumbent on academicians to provide well-grounded
theories to explain and understand the phenomena.
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
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.
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.
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.