How are Accolades Distributed - Essay Example

 How are accolades distributed? Introduction The distribution of accolades is certainly a complex procedure yet the purpose behind companies or service providers seeking accolades is a simple one indeed. Accolades allow service provider to hold up their company as being the best in the business and being the best in terms of one measure or another. In fact, even if they do not mean much for the customers or clients, they would at least assure the buyers that the company is respected and the service provided by them has been accepted as being above a certain standard as per the vision of an authority (Melville, 2006). Therefore, accolades are important for organizations and the process by which they are distributed becomes an important consideration for any person connected with the fields of management, service provision and even psychology and sociology. Distributing Accolades Essentially, there are two primary methods by which accolades can be distributed in an industry which focuses on services. The first method is to obtain accolades from the governing body of the industry if there is one and the second is to obtain a quality or service measure from a reviewing body which exists to help the consumers (Clark and Johnston, 2005). In both cases, the decision to give the accolade belongs to external forces and there is no direct link between the users of the service and those who receive the award. In certain situations, if managed carefully, a company can award itself an accolade and even manage to fool many people into thinking that such an accolade has been given to them by a respected authority. For example, a company may say that their service is rated at seven stars but there may be no official body or even a consumer group which rates their service at seven stars. The best example of such a technique comes from the hotel industry itself where certain hotels in the world have claimed themselves to be rated at seven stars while international hotel ranking groups have no rating higher than five. Rudd (2007, Pg. 1) reports that, “There’s no such thing as a seven-star category. The Burj Al Arab in Dubai and the Emirates Palace in Abu Dhabi might claim to be seven-star, but that’s their own interpretation, measured presumably by how much gold and marble you can squeeze into one building”. At the same time, there are certain groups, publications and even websites which create rankings for service providers and companies often compete with each other to gain the best possible position within those rankings. For example, companies which use consumer surveys and independent evaluators can say that their voice is the people’s voice since their survey shows exactly what users think about a certain service (Cook, 2004). Groups such as JD Powers and associates use customer surveys to judge how good or bad a certain product or service provider is and then the company gives out awards to various organizations (Melville, 2006). On the other hand, a company such as Forbes will also use surveys to judge the quality and efficiency of an organization but instead of asking consumers and buyers, the company focuses on the heads and CEOs of other companies. For example, Forbes sends out surveys concerning the procedures and ethical systems followed at various companies and then will ask the CEOs concerning their ideas about which company they admire most. The results of the survey lets Forbes know about the most admired companies in the world in terms of their ethics, business success and even their quality of service. With this information, Forbes can then say that GE is the most admired company in the world or that Apple Inc. is the most admired company in America. These accolades become important for companies such as GE and Apple Inc. since Forbes carries their name, their financial information and the information about their CEOs in full length articles. It becomes a very important tool to reach investors and to show the investors that the company is a successful one. At the same time, reputable business awards and commendations coming from respected publications only improve the public profile of a company. In this regard, there are three important international systems of business awards which include the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA), the European Foundation for Quality Management Excellence Award (EFQMEA) and the Deming Prize (Laszlo, 1996). The Malcolm Baldrige model has American roots while the Deming model is Japanese in origin. As per its name, the European Excellence award has European origins but it is also more refined as compared to other systems of recognizing the excellence shown by a company. While the models are all focused on business excellence, the method by which the accolade is given to a service provide is different for each therefore it is necessary to look at them individually. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Loomba & Johannessen (1997) conducted an extensive study of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award which cantered on the issues surrounding the award and the multifaceted problems that could be faced by companies that are trying to obtain it. While they say that the search for this award allows companies to make improvements within their service systems, they also criticize the award since it does not give clear guidelines or recommended changes for sustainable excellence in services. The award focuses a fourth of its criteria points on business results in financial terms and that can be only taken as a short term criteria for excellence (Loomba & Johannessen, 1997). While the business results category for the award measures things like product quality and service quality, the majority of the points in the MBNQ system are given to financial and operational results. More importantly, the award does not focus much on strategic planning which can be vitally important for any company working in the services sector (Hart and Bogan, 1992). Therefore, the MBNQA appears to be a spot check of service quality rather than a reliable method for seeing which company provides the best services in a given industry(Sims et al., 1992). Despite this, George (1992) reports that the MBNQA does take into account some very important aspects of running a company on a day to day basis therefore the award certainly shows that the company is on the right path. However, the focus on the short term development displayed by a company shows that the award is very American in nature as the long term developmental and growth aspects of the company or the service provider are largely ignored by those giving the award (Loomba & Johannessen, 1997). European Accolade Wins the Accolades The European model presents a better example of what an award should be and what the process for awarding companies should entail. The primary reason for this is that the European award is only given to companies that show that they have incorporated into their businesses the learning which they gained while they were seeking the award. For example, working for the American award, Xerox found that there were several hundred ways in which they could improve their business performance and services therefore they implemented quite a few of the discoveries they had made. However, these improvements were not needed for the award itself since the American award does not seek to find out what improvements were made by the company (Loomba & Johannessen, 1997). On the other hand, the European award helps both the company internally by forcing improvements in its service systems and externally by giving it a higher standing in the market (Hides et. al., 2004). This actually becomes the driving force of European award since it wants, “to be the driving force for sustainable excellence in organisations in Europe (Hides et. al., 2004, pg. 195)”. Puay et. al. (1998) clarify this through the use of statistical data which shows that the European award is less focused on results as compared to other national quality awards while the American award is the one which is the most focused on short term results shown by a service provider. The European award then appears to be the best of the lot since it pushes companies to do better than just tell them that they are doing well. However, a look at the Japanese system is also necessary before the European system of awarding companies can be taken as the best. The Deming Prize Loomba & Johannessen (1997, Pg. 60) note that, “Ironically, Japan’s most prestigious quality assurance award, the Deming prize, created in 1951, honours an American quality guru”. American quality and sustained levels of excellent service were quickly learnt by the Japanese to the point that American companies flocked to Japan to see their operational and service management systems (Deming, 2000). The primary purpose of the Deming Prize is to recognise improvements in a company that have come from the implementation of quality control systems. In this manner, the Deming Prize looks at the criteria of establishing quality control systems to select a winner (Vokurka et. al., 2000). With the given information about how companies receive awards from various bodies, it is easy to see that European model is better when it is compared to the MBNQA or the Deming Prize. While the awards may have their differences, they all recognise the achievements of a company and this is what makes them highly respected and coveted. For these awards as with other awards which focus on services, consumer responses and the experience of the consumer is important for the awarding committee as are the financial results (Vokurka et. al., 2000). To get an award, a service provider has to look at both the short and long term strategy in order to create a model which can be respected in the business world. Depending on the objectives of the service provider, one award may be more important than the other and the company can gear itself to work towards an award if it wants to. Undoubtedly, there are significant benefits which come from working towards an award since it also gives an overall objective for the company’s leadership beyond making profits. The focus on quality, a high level of service and the search for customer satisfaction is something which all businesses can appreciate therefore the hunt for awards is entirely justified for a company that wishes to see improvements (Jackson, 2001). Certainly, there is a deep sense of pride and company wide achievement that is directly linked with winning a prize as well known as the MBNQA or the European award but as discussed by Steeples (1992) companies may go to great lengths to get these awards. For some the approach taken by many companies who are seeking these awards could even be considered ethically questionable. For example, while seeking the MBNQA, Xerox recruited the board members of the prize giving committee as consultants which could raise some eyebrows regarding their eligibility to vote for a company they were working for (Loomba & Johannessen, 1997). However, the industry wide respect and the marketing points gained by such awards will continue to push more companies into seeking them even if they have to use questionable means. Conclusion In Conclusion, while some companies may choose not to compete for awards at all, the majority of businesses and service providers appreciate the benefits which come from having a certificate of quality or an award which they can print on their products (Clark and Baker, 2004). Undeniably, some companies will always be better than others and the awards are only one manner of measuring which is the best company from a given group of companies. Simply put, awards appear to be quite important for all stake holders since they become the quickest measure for comparing two companies in a variety of ways. Even though the customer or the client may not understand the manner in which the award was won or even know exactly who gave the award to the company, just knowing that the company has received an award for tis services could be enough to push the buying decision one way or the other. However, fake awards and companies who do not live up to the wards given to them will not be able to offer the best value to their clients, therefore despite all the awards in the world, only a company which gives the best value to the client will be the one which stands the test of time and gets the award for success. Works Cited Clark, G. and Johnston, R. 2005, Service Operations Management: Improving Service Delivery. FT Prentice-Hall. Clark, M. and Baker, S. 2004, Business Success Through Service Excellence. Butterworth-Heinemann. Cook, S. 2004, Measuring Customer Service Effectiveness. Gower Publishing Limited. Deming, W. 2000, Out of the Crisis, MIT Press. George, S. 1992, The Baldrige Quality System, Wiley & Sons. Hart, C. and Bogan, C. 1992, The Baldrige, McGraw-Hill. Hides, M. et. al. 2004, ‘Implementation of EFQM excellence model’, The TQM Magazine, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 194-201. Jackson, S. 2001, Using the EFQM Excellence Model within Health Care, Kingsham Press. Laszlo, G. 1996, ‘Quality awards - recognition or model?’, The TQM Magazine, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 14-18. Loomba, A and Johannessen, T. 1997, ‘Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award: Critical issues and inherent values’, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 59-77. Melville, G. 2006, ‘Auto Awards: Who really wins?’, [Online] Available at: http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/23/Autos/tipsandadvice/award_meanings/index.htm Puay, S. et. al. 1998, ‘A comparative study of nine national quality awards’, The TQM Magazine, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 30-39. Rudd, M. 2007, ‘Europe’s first seven-star hotel?’, [Online] Available at: http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/travel/article1428252.ece Sims, A. et al. 1992, ‘Does the Baldrige Award really work?’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 126-147. Steeples, M. 1992, The Corporate Guide to the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards, ASQC Quality Press. Vokurka, R. et. al. 2000, ‘Comparative analysis of national and regional quality awards’, Quality Progress, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 41-49. Read More