Summary
The article at hand is devoted to the comparison of business awards across the world. The author’s view is based upon the assumption that it is widely accepted in a number of countries to recognize employees’ productivity by issuing quality and business excellence awards. Due to the fact that national awards and models for excellence have become a universal practice, there arises a question about similitude and differences of all these awards. The relevance of the presented research in supported by the fact that most of the studies conducted on the topic are do not manage to consider a large number of awards from all over the world, which means that their conclusions are not sufficiently evidenced (Miguel, 2005). Furthermore, some reports are outdated. This means that their results do not reflect the current state of things. That was the reason the author of the paper attempted a comprehensive analysis.
This strategy of quality promotion gives significant results since both financial and non-financial benefits result in performance improvement. The article investigates more than 30 quality awards from different countries in order to find out their similarities and differences. The study employs a qualitative data gathering since its key purpose is not to collect statistical analysis but to compare various aspects of all the selected awards. Despite the fact that these awards may differ in some aspects (the factors under consideration included core values, mission, categories, levels of recognition and eligibility, and point scores), the author of the article still concludes that the prevailing majority of the awards are quite similar in their essence. Their peculiarities are considered to be insignificant (Miguel, 2005).
Key Learning Points
The key goal of the paper was to analyze and compare a number of awards issued in different counties in order to find out whether they vary depending on the country and the organization. For this purpose, Mission, Core Values and Concepts, and Criteria and Items were identified as points of comparison. The author found out that all the countries that were present on the list reveal considerable similarities as per these factors. However, there were also certain differences, which mostly concerned the way each award dealt with new technologies, knowledge, and innovation management (Miguel, 2005). These differences were not covered in the article.
Furthermore, the author assumes that, since all awards were occasionally reviewed and updated, they could develop other parallels and gradually transform into one global framework that would be applicable in any country. However, there is no proposition on the structure and the nature of this framework in the article.
In addition, the author suggested conducting a comparative analysis with the purpose of finding out the differences at all the stages of the award process, including selection and training of the examiner and the evaluation phase. It is proposed to focus on how examiners are selected and allocated to award applicants, considering experiences of programs coming from a number of different countries (Miguel, 2005).
The next step of the research is supposed to be exploring customization to the country’s needs since there is currently no information on the topic. Neither is there any detailed report on the scoring guidelines that different awards use or the criteria for choosing them.
Relevant Statements to the Session
Since the majority of sessions that we had were devoted to various concepts related to business excellence, I decided to juxtapose the specific ideas taken from the article to the topic we discussed:
Leadership
We have discussed that leaders’ personality and actions, especially in the 21st century, have become one of the major driving forces in creating and sustaining the image of any modern organization. The role of the leader has become so significant that it determines how this or that meets its ethical, public, and legal responsibilities, leaving alone the way it is perceived by the target audience. Although the article does not develop this idea, leadership is selected as one of the most influential factors predetermining the ability of a company to obtain the highest award.
Customer orientation
Another issue that we discussed in our sessions was customer focus. We examined how a company can implement various market strategies, how it may modify its practices to increase customer satisfaction and what techniques can be implemented to measure the progress. The article supports the idea that this issue ranges among the top of the most award categories in a number of countries.
Labor focus
We have discussed how increase workforce capacity and capability in order to use its full potential. However, in the article, the author is more focused on employees’ perspective since most of award programs are more human- than result-oriented.
Results
In our sessions, we have learnt how to assess organizational performance using various indicators as well as how to compare the result to those obtained by competitors. Yet, the author of the article at hand states that the results are disregarded in the majority of reward programs, which implies that researchers should attach more significance to other constituents of business excellence.
Critical Analysis
In order to be able to provide critical analysis, assessment, and evaluation of the article, it is required to investigate, what practical purposes the research may serve, what results have been achieved, and how they are applicable for real business settings.
First and foremost, the selection of the topic deserves separate attention. The author states that award systems have already become a universal practice in the business world. However, he does not go into detail about the reasons such a great number of companies introduce this types of incentive. In other words, there is not grounding why the issue needs to be studied and what practical results it may give to real businesses. The following reasons can be provided in this respect (Gómez-Gómez, Martínez-Costa, Martínez-Lorente, 2016).
Awards can produce a considerable impact on the brand image. There are now a lot of organizations that overlook this opportunity for promoting their product. Furthermore, the emphasis on obtaining an award is insufficient: Even those companies that get them often forget to include the mention of it on their business logo, cards, website, sales material, label, etc. Awards do not only signalize high quality and recognition, but also allow the manufacturer to win competitive edge since it makes the product stand higher than its alternatives provided by competitors. Thus, it is necessary to study award systems since they can help businesses get valuable contacts, find new customers and partners, and penetrated deeper into the market.
As a continuation of the first argument, investigating award systems as well as companies that most frequently win awards, may assist organizations in assessment of their own performance. Looking at the business from the perspective of being or not being worthy of getting an award makes it easier to realize what organizational issues must be improved or innovated. As a result, companies evaluate their performance taking into account all crucial factors, including customer service, innovation, diversity, HR policies, strategic thinking, leadership, etc. Awards make them realize that they can do better, which is even more valuable that the prize itself.
Not only awards but also even nominations and short-listing can be a considerable endorsement for the business since it increases credibility and customer loyalty. If the company wins a prize, it automatically gets a sign of approval to its activities, which implies that it has more chances to attract the customer’s attention to its products. Moreover, awards can improve relationships with suppliers and send out positive signals for potential partners.
Studying different award systems gives a holistic picture of the attitude to business excellence in different countries. When researchers identify the differences between missions, values, scores, concepts, etc. that underlie each prestigious award, it will be much easier to figure out what factors of organizational performance are particularly valuable for each country. This knowledge may help significantly when one has to assess a new market as it will give a clear picture of the direction taken by the major market players.
Awards do not increase the prestige of the business but also allow recognizing effort made by employees, which, in its turn, have a positive influence on the moral of the staff as well as their motivation. It has been proven by research that non-financial incentives are no less powerful than financial ones as employees need to be concentrated on what is unique about the company, for which they work. Being proud of it is one of the major components of their satisfaction. Besides, attending an award ceremony may be a great opportunity to establish connections.
Last but not least, when a company receives an award, its hiring status is changed considerably since it becomes much more attractive for applicants.
Thus, it is clear that the topic the author of the article chooses for discussion is a relevant one. Another question that arises is whether it is reasonable to compare award systems of different countries and if the differences analyzed are considerable enough for researcher to study them profoundly.
The author states that missions of all 33 award programs are quite similar; however, some of their objectives are different (Miguel, 2005). Yet, I believe that the differences can be explained by the purpose and peculiarities of each award and are hardly considerable for programs that are aimed to involve organizations of one particular type and size.
In addition, all award systems identify the same core values for companies, which include “customer”, “people”, “leadership”, and “social responsibility”. The majority of them also indicate “learning”, “innovation”, “results”, and “management by fact” (Miguel, 2005). Therefore, it is logical to assume that globalization has produced a considerable impact on organizations all over the world. Customers have become the major drivers for all types of companies regardless of goods and services that they offer. This can be explained by oversaturation of the global market. Since the customer has a large variety of options to choose from, it is becoming increasingly complicated for company leaders to win competitive edge (Dahlgaard, Chen, Jang, Banegas, & Dahlgaard-Park, 2013). That is also one the reason leadership ranges among the core values in all awards systems alongside with results. The role of the leader has changed dramatically in the 21st century due to the rapid growth of transitional economies, and global networks of economic, technological, and social interconnectedness. Due to the fact that the potential of growing markets can no longer be neglected, market leaders in developed countries have to revise their policies and practices in order to be able to retain their positions. That is why all award systems prioritize leader competencies over financial performance of the company, which can be temporary (Brown, 2013).
For the same reason, people appear as a key factor on the list. Human labor has an increased importance as it may act as a change agent for organizations. Since technologies have become widely available for all high-performance firms, the major difference is made by people, who generate organizational knowledge (Brown, 2014). Employees are also regarded as drivers of innovation.
From this part of the analysis, it can be inferred that there is no particular need to study the topic more closely as it is clear that most award systems share the same values and pursue similar goals, which makes investigation irrelevant for business practices. However, the author of the article claims that there is no consensus achieved as per other dimensions. Therefore, it is necessary to assess whether this categories can make any differences for firms that want to apply for awards when they expand their presence to other countries.
Measurement and performance are absent in half of the programs under analysis (Miguel, 2005). This implies that the other half still looks at assessment procedures and performance indicators. If companies overlook these factors they may lose to those that pay close attention to such metrics. The same is true about resources that include a whole range of different components (buildings, technology, material, knowledge, assets, etc.). While it is typical only of European awards to consider equipment, buildings, and assets, knowledge is present in all of them.
Thus, the conclusion follows that although the research performed by the author of the article can be applicable for businesses that want to increase their presence in developing markets or in those that are located in remote parts of the world, it is still irrelevant for companies that prefer expanding their practice on the same continent. For them, differences in award systems are quite insignificant to change their business strategies. Most categories that could allow them to win in their country of origin range among the top in award programs in foreign countries.
Practical Implications
Having learnt what factors of organizational performance are considered to be the key once for obtaining rewards in the majority of countries, one can apply this information in real business case by introducing changes that would allow the company to compete for this or that award. For instance, if my company will decide to apply for the national prize, I will implement the following strategies deduced from the article:
- It is important to bear in mind that due to globalization that sets universal standards for performance excellence, the company must concentrate on the differences that make them stand out. Therefore, although it may be valuable to analyze some cases of award-winning firms and try borrowing some of their successful strategic moves, it is totally wrong to duplicate them. For this purpose, the company will have to change its organizational structure, policies, and goals with dubious chances for success. For winning awards in any of the analyzed countries, it is much more effective to concentrate on how unique your organizational mission is and what innovative practices are applied to promote the key values from the award list.
- It is not always about your financial performance and budget allocation. As it is evident from the article, only several award systems consider these metrics. In the majority of cases, financial indicators are regarded as temporary since they are influenced by a wide variety of extrinsic factors that may be independent from the company’s business solutions (e.g. economic recession in the country or changes of governmental policies applicable to businesses may produce a considerable negative impact on organizational performance). Thus, creativity of business solutions should be prioritized over finances.
- Owing to the constantly growing competition, winning awards becomes the task that is hard to achieve, especially when missions and core values are hard to differentiate. Besides, awards are granted by the jury, consisting of people who are not aware of business practices applied by the majority of participants. Thus, besides being different, my organization must also position itself differently. Even having the same values may be reflected differently in companies’ mission statements and award entries. The organization must be able to reflect its best achievements to win attention of the award committee.
- Despite the fact that coping other organization is not productive, conducting research is still vital to be able to identify what factors are crucial for obtaining this or that reward. Every change in the organizational strategy or policies must be based on insight. Thus, in order to guide changes, I would create a research team that would be responsible for collecting information about the previous participants and winners to find out what tactics were the most successful.
If the strategies I apply are successful, I will proceed with the result promotion. I’m convinced that making the most of the award is crucial for your brand image. Moreover, researchers’ attention will be directed to your company, which implies that winning strategies will be deduced from your experience. I will promote the information using (Tickle, Mann, & Adebanjo, 2016):
- Press releases. Although in the majority of cases, the winners are provided with templates for press releases, I will try to use not only print but also online resources.
- Email marketing. Email newsletters that will share your success story will help attract attention of potential partners and market researchers.
- Using the logo of the awards. The logo may be placed on the product label, advertizing, home page, business cards, and any other place.
- Social media. It is quite easy to post the link to the news announcing the winners.
- Giving interviews. Most people have not idea of the categories of award systems described in the article. They may know about the existence or name of this or that award but stay totally unaware of what stand behind it. Giving interviews will give me an opportunity to go into detail about the merits of the company that made it possible to receive the highest prize.
Learning Reflections
The major thing I have learnt after analyzing the article is that regardless of the country of origin, most awards are similar in their major categories (mission, core values, and concepts), which allows concluding that culture differences lose their significance in the business world, in which globalization has become the key destination of any industry. Already from the given study, it can be assumed that further similarities will soon emerge even in the awards that now seem to be considerably different.
There is also an important lesson for businesses that are going to expand to foreign markets. It is typical of organization leader to do research of the customer needs and the competitors. However, studying award systems of the target countries, they can easily obtain valuable information about the values that are prioritized by the population and the industry leaders. This will facilitate their adaptation process and ensure due modifications of some policies and strategies.
Another point of interest is that it turns out to be wrong to focus exclusively on financial performance to win prizes. The research reveals that in the majority of counties financial indicators are not included on the list of key award categories. Thus, the leading market position based on the amount of profit obtained is regarded as temporary, largely depending on a number of external factors that may change. For businesses, it means that deeper research should be done as far as the practices of industry leaders are concerned to understand what the internal driving forces they have that allow them to keep the top position.
Last but not least, it is evident from the article that studying award types actually means getting an idea about the winner firms that corresponded fully to the requirements set in all reward categories. As a result, companies that are shortlisted or nominated do not attract much attention of researchers. The picture would be holistic if those factors that prevented organizations from winning would also be included in the research.
References
Brown, A. (2013). Managing challenges in sustaining business excellence. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 30(4), 461-475.
Brown, A. (2014). Organisational paradigms and sustainability in excellence: From mechanistic approaches to learning and innovation. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 6(2/3), 181-190.
Dahlgaard, J. J., Chen, C. K., Jang, J. Y., Banegas, L. A., & Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2013). Business excellence models: Limitations, reflections and further development. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(5-6), 519-538.
Gómez-Gómez, J., Martínez-Costa, M., Martínez-Lorente, Á. R. (2016). Weighting the dimensions in models of excellence–a critical review from a business perspective. Measuring Business Excellence, 20(3), 79-90.
Miguel, P. A. C. (2005). A comparison of quality and business excellence programs in the world. Revista de Ciência & Tecnologia, 13(25/26), 35-46.
Tickle, M., Mann, R., & Adebanjo, D. (2016). Deploying business excellence–success factors for high performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 33(2), 197-230.