Positions and transformations on the quality culture continuum motivated by organisational values

Organisations today face complex challenges to succeed and deliver quality, including driving and achieving changes, advancing processes, and involving customers in improvement (Eriksson et al., 2016). Managing this complexity requires greater adaptability in organisations (Bojesson and Fundin, 2021), which has implications for the organisational cultures necessary to support flexibility and resilience. Leading adaptive organisations requires a shift from short-term practices to a proactive, value-based, responsive, and adaptable way of working that follows sustainable practices (Bäckström et al., 2018). Leaders in adaptive organisations adopt a system approach to construct organisational structures that allow networked interactions, foster innovation, and offer leadership development supporting collaboration and individual performance (Holmes et al., 2013; Snyder and Snyder, 2023).

To achieve this shift, leaders must engage with the organisational culture, characterised by behaviours, language, norms, and values (Schein, 2009), which is vital to organisational structure (Chatman and Cha, 2003). The impact of an organisation’s culture on coworkers’ performance and the value delivered to customers and stakeholders have been substantiated by numerous studies (Chen et al., 2021; Ingelsson, 2013; Margulies and Raia, 1988; Schein, 2017; Shingo Institute, 2017; Wu, 2015). Identifying and understanding values and their development is an ongoing task for leaders (Laszlo, 2008; Schein, 2017; Snyder et al., 2024). Values manifest in behaviour, communication, and symbolic systems and are furthermore embedded within an organisation’s culture (Schein, 2009).

More recently, quality management (QM) researchers have explored the development of simpler, less time-consuming measures that still address the soft variables inherent in behaviours and values (Bäckström et al., 2012; Cronemyr et al., 2017). This study aims to develop measures of employees’ behaviours in action that would detect the pronounced and prescriptive values in an organisation. This approach to studying quality culture provides an alternative approach to norm-based models designed from archetypes and typologies. Unique to this approach is the integration of organisational behaviours and values, which are often studied as separate dimensions. Rather, this approach suggests that behaviours and values inform one another and that to understand the values present in an organisation, it is necessary to study its behaviours.

This study also contributes new insights and knowledge regarding how to translate and examine organisational values and their relationship to behaviours within the framework of quality culture. It is based on earlier research and theoretical development on values that foster a quality-oriented culture in organisations (Cronemyr et al., 2017). It extends quality culture measurement research by operationalising an organisation’s values as observable, sustainable behaviours. By analysing organisational values through behaviours, this study supports leaders in identifying shifts as well as in the development of quality cultures within organisations. To better understand how a quality culture is positioned and transformed within organisations, the objective of the current study is to describe how a quality culture continuum can be interpreted through the integration of organisational values. Accordingly, the following two research questions (RQs) are posed:

To develop and assess an extended quality culture framework, the continuum construct is utilized as a means. A continuum is defined here as a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements (organisational values) are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct. The article is organised as follows: First, the theoretical framework introduces the conceptual foundation of the study, emphasising the role of organisational culture in driving operational development. It traces the evolution of Quality Management practices and the integration of quality culture within organisations, highlighting the assessment of quality culture through organisational values and employee behaviours as indicators of cultural maturity.

The methodology section outlines the holistic multiple-case study design, which incorporates data from three distinct cases. A survey design is employed to capture employee perceptions and preferences regarding an extended quality culture framework. The results section presents findings that demonstrate the effectiveness of adopting a quality culture framework aligned with organisational values. A comparative analysis of employee preferences identifies both commonalities and variations in how quality culture is perceived and implemented across the cases. The discussion provides a cross-case analysis of nine core values in transition within the quality culture continuum. It also explores how contextual factors influence the adoption and evolution of quality culture, offering a nuanced understanding of its dynamic nature. Finally, the conclusion presents theoretical and practical insights. Theoretical contributions enhance the understanding of quality culture integration, while practical implications offer guidance for aligning quality initiatives with organisational values. The article also addresses limitations and proposes directions for future research, such as exploring diverse contexts and refining assessment methodologies.

Organisational culture serves as the foundation for the behaviours, values, and norms that guide an organisation. In the realm of QM and Total Quality Management (TQM), this culture plays a pivotal role in fostering environments that prioritize continuous improvement, customer satisfaction, and process efficiency. Quality management provides the frameworks for systematically achieving high standards, while TQM emphasises a holistic, organisation-wide commitment to quality. Within this context, concepts like Measuring Culture and Quality Culture emerge as critical tools. Measuring Culture evaluates the alignment of organisational values with quality objectives, while Quality Culture emphasises the integration of quality-focused attitudes and practices into the organisation’s ethos. Together, these elements create a synergistic environment where culture and quality reinforce each other, driving sustainable excellence.

Studying and assessing organisational culture is complex and has been ongoing for decades (Snyder et al., 2017). Approaches span from in-depth cultural analyses based on ethnographic studies (see Martin, 1992) to standardised indexes (for example, Cameron and Quinn, 2011; Hildesheim and Sonntag, 2020; Sattler et al., 2016). The approaches are derived from different theoretical frameworks, including cultural studies (Martin, 1992), communication culture (Bantz and Pepper, 1993) and culture and leadership (Najem et al., 2012), effectiveness (Cameron and Quinn, 2011), quality assurance (Sattler et al., 2016) and total quality management (Detert et al., 2003).

Many of the indices designed to measure organisational culture are normative, reflecting prototypes, archetypes, or structural dimensions of the organisation. For example, the well-known Competing Values Framework (Cameron and Quinn, 2011) with the corresponding Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) is based on effectiveness. It categorises organisational culture into one of four archetypes that reflect how the organisation functions and the associated values present within to become effective (Yu and Wu, 2009). Proponents of quality culture suggest a more comprehensive model is needed that is grounded in the principles of quality management and integrates people and processes (Cronemyr et al., 2017; Detert et al., 2003; Malá et al., 2023; Sattler et al., 2016; Snyder et al., 2017; Wu, 2015).

Concretising quality culture as a core component of successful quality management applications brings to light the important interplay between values, norms and behaviours with the process and tools employed to achieve quality in products and services (Cameron and Sine, 1999; Dellana and Hauser, 1999; Detert et al., 2003; Malá et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2011). Understanding and operationalising organisational culture – and even more so quality culture – is complex (Cronemyr et al., 2017; Yu and Wu, 2009; Wu, 2015). Despite the significant impact of organisational culture on performance, the identification and understanding of values and behaviours as they relate to the organisation’s vision and mission are often misunderstood or disregarded (Cronemyr et al., 2017; Wu, 2015).

Organisational culture reflects the systems and structures through which coworkers find meaning in their work and organisational lives (Alvesson, 2012; Henri, 2006; Martin, 1992; Schein, 2017). It can be described as “the way we do things around here” and is generally defined as “a shared and learned world of experiences, meanings, values, and understandings that inform people and are expressed, reproduced, and communicated partly in symbolic form” (Alvesson, 2012). It demonstrates itself through artefacts, including language, stories told by coworkers, customers, and leaders, and signs used to convey an organisation’s values and purpose (Martin, 1992; Schein, 2017).

Martins and Terblanche (2003, p. 65) define organisational culture as “the deeply seated (often subconscious) values and beliefs shared by personnel in an organisation”. In a strong organisational culture, most members share the same values, which enhance energy among coworkers and influence their behaviours and outcomes (Chatman and Cha, 2003; Grönfeldt and Strother, 2006). Chatman and Cha (2003) assert that a powerful organisational culture emerges from a high level of agreement among coworkers regarding what is valued and a high intensity of these values.

Martin (1992) indicates three fundamental styles of organisational culture: integrated, fragmented, and differentiated. An integrated culture is characterised by common language, symbols, and narratives that support the organisation’s efforts to advance its vision, goals, and customer satisfaction. A fragmented organisation is marked by informal subcultures, each with its distinct codes of conduct, behaviour, and language. Typically, fragmented cultures are transient and do not develop norms and values separate from those of the overall organisation. A differentiated organisation comprises subcultures that occur with the intent of making opposition within the organisation (Martin, 1992). Leaders are required to develop a practice for identifying the codes, conduct, and language of coworkers to identify the kind of culture that exists (Snyder, 2023). Hence, organisational culture and quality culture are comprised of complementary constructs with different origins, see Table 1.

Building an organisational culture requires leaders to understand the development of communication systems that establish shared values, vision, and time (Snyder et al., 2000). Transforming an organisational culture is a long-term process. Although changes to organisational structures can be implemented immediately, fostering a collective perception of an organisation’s vision and values may be more time-consuming (Sinkula et al., 1997).

In the twentieth century, quality emerged as a distinct area of management, influenced by the teachings of quality gurus (Zairi, 2013; Around 1990, concepts such as companywide quality control, total quality control, and total quality management (TQM) were introduced, often by consultants. They were recommended as Western methods to emulate Japanese post-World War II quality achievements (Bergman et al., 2022). However, these concepts did not achieve the desired success as they were vaguely defined as “a culture which … ”, “a strategy for … ”, or “a way to … ”, and issues related to their implementation were frequently overlooked (Bergman et al., 2022). Foley (2004, p. 35) describes the situation as follows: “After several decades of vigorous (often evangelistic) promotion and a burgeoning literature, Quality Management is not universally or even widely accepted, has no generally accepted or agreed definition, does not have a theoretical framework, has not found a place in mainstream western management literature, has failed to deliver promised results and is riven with debate and confusion over the very definition of quality”.

Fundin et al. (2019, 2020) and Van Kemenade and Hardjono (2019) assert that a new paradigm, namely the emergence paradigm, is required to clarify both the current directions and future needs of QM. They argue that the merging of systems thinking with QM theory and practices, as well as in management training, can transform QM into TQM. Carnerud and Bäckström (2021) observe that QM is frequently chosen for studies on quality aimed at readers in Operations Management. TQM, however, is more narrowly focused and is preferred and utilised within a specific research community.

Researchers have used various terms to refer to the content of TQM and QM. These include factors, key elements, values, cornerstones, or principles (Dale, 2003; Foster, 2004; Lagrosen, 2006; Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2002). Dahlgaard-Park (2012) claims that the core values of QM support coworkers’ spiritual and ethical needs; if not applied, the efficiency and effectiveness of these values diminish. According to Sila and Ebrahimpour (2002), the most commonly occurring QM values in the literature are customer orientation, leadership commitment, everyone’s participation, continuous improvement, management by facts, and process orientation.

Quality culture is a term derived from the integration of quality management principles and organisational culture theories. Cameron and Sine (1999) argue the need for this integration given the ambiguities that exist between quality and organisational performance. Dahlgaard-Park (2015) contends that quality culture can mean different things to different organisations since it is based on values and behaviours among the people. Accordingly, she suggests that quality culture includes a few human factors, such as psychological needs, social needs, safety and needs for realisation. Furthermore, quality cultures are best understood as those with a level of maturity to implement the principles of total quality management. For example, a strong quality culture implies “deeply rooted and widely accepted key values” (p. 6), whereas a weak culture is characterised by a lack of clear vision and purpose. The maturity of quality cultures is also reflected in the organisation’s adaptivity and proactive engagement of people.

In keeping with this view, Malá et al. (2023) define quality culture as “an image of the employee approach to quality in an enterprise ….[that expresses] what quality means for an enterprise, how quality goals are defined, how everyone in the enterprise participates in their fulfilment, how the group and individual performance is measured, and how those who have contributed to achieving quality goals are rewarded” (p. 221). Wu et al. (2011) perceive quality culture as something that is rooted in the principles of total quality management (TQM), suggesting that it is different from organisational culture. A quality culture consists of three core elements: “doing the right thing the first time, striving for continuous improvement, and fulfilling customer needs” (p. 266).

Others, such as Detert et al. (2003), worked to develop a quality culture framework that connected the work of Schein (2009) with the principles of total quality management. In their development work, they found most measures that aimed to link quality management and culture lacked a general theory grounded in TQM and failed to focus on the elements of culture most directly associated with TQM.

The Swedish Institute for Quality (SIQ, 2022), a research institute established by the Swedish government, suggests that a strong quality culture is built on six primary values: committed leadership, basing decisions on facts, customer orientation, everyone’s participation, process orientation and continuous improvement (Bergman et al., 2022; Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2002). Measuring the behaviours that occur within an organisation provides a good indication of the quality of the culture present to support the values.

Based on the theoretical framework, the following chapter propose a typology of values that foster a quality culture by building upon the six generic values commonly cited in the literature (e.g. Bergman et al., 2022; Cronemyr et al., 2017; Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2002) and extending it with three empirically derived values—professionalism, development, and cooperation—identified inductively through current case study. This typology recognises both the theoretical grounding in TQM and the contextual adaptability needed to embed a quality culture in contemporary organisations. See Table 2.

The integration rationale of the three empirically derived values—professional integrity, learning orientation, and social cohesion—represents an enhancement of the established typology grounded in TQM literature. Classical TQM values, extensively cited in foundational works (Bergman et al., 2022; Dale, 2003; Detert et al., 2003; Foley, 2004; Foster, 2004; Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2002; Wu et al., 2011), include committed leadership, decision-making based on facts, customer orientation, everyone’s participation, process orientation, and continuous improvement. These values remain central to operational excellence and quality management. However, empirical insights suggest that these alone may not fully account for the social, ethical, and developmental dimensions that influence how quality is enacted within contemporary organisations.

Professional integrity, frame here as professionalism, adds behavioural and ethical depth to the typology. While “everyone’s participation” and “committed leadership” address the structural and directional aspects of quality, professionalism highlights the importance of ethical conduct, accountability, and responsibility across all organisational levels. This value ensures that quality-related behaviours are not merely mandated but internalised, thereby reinforcing trust and credibility within the system (Alvesson, 2012; Dahlgaard-Park, 2012).

Learning orientation, frame here as development, complement the focus on process optimisation to fostering of human and organisational capabilities. Whereas “continuous improvement” primarily addresses technical enhancement and improvement of working procedures, development emphasises long-term growth through reflection, feedback, and knowledge sharing (Henri, 2006; Fundin et al., 2019). This distinction reflects the view that sustainable quality management are contingent not only on iterative improvement but also on a learning infrastructure that supports adaptation and resilience over time.

Social cohesion, frame here as cooperation, enriches the traditional values of “people involvement” and “process orientation” by focusing on the quality management of interpersonal and interdepartmental relationships. Effective collaboration is essential for cross-functional integration and collective problem-solving—both critical for high-performing quality cultures. As noted by Martin (1992) and Schein (2017), subcultural fragmentation can hinder alignment with organisational goals; thus, fostering cohesion through trust and mutual respect becomes essential for realising the full potential of process-oriented systems (Chatman and Cha, 2003; Malá et al., 2023).

Together, these new values deepen and humanise the traditional TQM typology, advancing quality culture theory towards a more holistic and integrated paradigm. By embedding elements of ethical conduct, developmental capacity, and relational dynamics, the revised framework provides a more nuanced basis for cultivating and sustaining quality in complex organisational contexts (Cameron and Sine, 1999). This enhanced typology not only preserves the strengths of classical quality management but also addresses emergent challenges in today’s rapidly evolving operational environments.

Understanding the behaviours that support and those that hinder organisational values is crucial for developing and improving an organisation’s culture (Balthazard et al., 2006; Cronemyr et al., 2017). Hofstede (1980) describes that “social systems can exist only because human behavior is not random, but to some extent predictable”. It is essential to understand how values manifest in practice (i.e. through behaviours) to provide value for coworkers (Alvesson, 2012; Chen et al., 2021; Hajkazemi et al., 2024). An organisation with a strong culture based on supportive, sustainable behaviour is more likely to adapt to society’s rapid pace of transformation, crises, and economic circumstances (Snyder et al., 2016). Furthermore, a long-term mindset is necessary when measuring the values and behaviours within an organisation (Ingelsson and Bäckström, 2017). Studies show that proactively working with culture facilitates transformations in organisations (Smit, 2021). Research also indicates that fostering values and beliefs significantly enhances perceived organisational support (Costa et al., 2014).

The abstract nature of studying behaviours and values presents challenges for developing approaches that can be used by leaders seeking simple measures and bottom lines. Early approaches for examining organisational culture often employed ethnographic techniques, describing and understanding language and symbol systems through extensive participant observation (Martin, 1992; Snyder et al., 2016). Contrastingly, Cooke and Rousseau (1988) describe how to use the organisational culture inventory to measure and quantify the profile of the culture in organisations. Zamanou and Glaser (1994) utilise an organisational culture scale to measure and manage organisational culture, and Kotter (2012) proposes an eight-stage process transforming an organisational culture driven by social and economic forces. Late research by Tang et al. (2021) also indicates that employees are more likely to join and thrive in organisations where rational goal values are aligned. As a result, rational goals tend to have less influence compared to other values.

Assessing organisational culture requires a varied approach, including both “hard” and “soft” measures (Cronemyr et al., 2017). Madi Bin Abdullah et al. (2008), Bititci et al. (2006), and Bäckström et al. (2012) assert a strong positive correlation between soft factors, reflected in behaviours, and organisational results. Previously, organisational culture was evaluated using anthropological methods, focusing on soft factors such as behaviours and values (Snyder, 2023). However, this method of assessment is both time-consuming and unbalanced for organisations, necessitating new strategies for measuring organisational culture.

Several researchers have indicated that performance excellence models should incorporate soft measures as the core quality factors (Dahlgaard et al., 2011; Snyder et al., 2016). Bititci et al. (2006) observe a connection between performance measurement and organisational culture, suggesting that what an organisation measures influences behaviours and mindsets. Currently, many performance measurement systems neglect human factors within an organisation (Dahler-Larsen, 2014; Elg et al., 2012; Susilawati et al., 2013), focusing instead on efficiency and productivity.

Snyder et al. (2016) discovered that organisational culture is a key element in performance measurement systems, but few studies have focused on behaviours and values. Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Parks’ (2006) “4P” (people, process, partnership, and products) model assessed culture through rituals, signs, and communication patterns at both micro- and macro-levels to identify values, behaviours, structures, and power relationships. Furthermore, Najem et al. (2012) integrated elements from Schein (2017) and Denison (2001) to evaluate culture and link behaviours and values to the core work of the process.

Current studies have explicitly focused on investigating values through behaviours (Cronemyr et al., 2017). Most research has concentrated on the abstract nature of values. Cronemyr et al. (2017) explore the assessment of quality culture and develop a measurement tool intended to gauge and assist leaders in enhancing their organisation’s quality culture. This tool employs behavioural explanations (vignettes) rather than descriptions of values, thereby facilitating the process for managers to operate and improve the quality culture based on these behaviours (Cronemyr et al., 2017). This study uses narratives as tools for measuring quality culture in QM.

Following Yin (2018), this study employs a holistic multiple-case study design, encompassing three cases: (1) health care centre (Case I), (2) service centre (Case II), and (3) call centre (Case III). Contextually, the cases are from different departments but within the same county, and they use the same values to develop the same organisation culture. They are, however, at different levels of maturity in their development work related to organisational culture, which served as the rationale for selecting them for the study.

Drawing on prior research, a survey instrument was developed to measure the quality culture in organisations. This digital web-based survey instrument has been utilised approximately 50 times by both private and public entities. This study develops this web-based survey instrument to include constructs that measure organisational culture, which are incorporated into an extended quality culture framework. The case studies were structured to test and validate the extended quality culture framework. Vignettes were used within the case studies to investigate the state of organisational culture, focusing on organisational values.

The three cases are workplaces within an organisation responsible for a county’s healthcare, research, public transport, infrastructure, business development, culture, and skills provision. This county encompasses 12 municipalities and upholds three core values: (1) Collaboration—implying cross-border cooperation that empowers the collective betterment of life; (2) Development—implying learning, exploring opportunities, and constantly and sustainably improving with a focus on the residents; (3) Professionalism—implying maintaining high quality, exhibiting trust, and allowing for professional discretion. These values were operationalised as behaviours that either promote or inhibit a quality culture in the organisation. This approach integrates the organisational values into an extended quality culture framework. However, the behaviours are described in a generic way, allowing them to hold meaning beyond the case organisation. See Table 3 for an overview of the integrated typology of quality values, which combines six theoretically established principles from TQM literature with three empirically derived values identified through the case study and interpreted through the theoretical framework.

To design and validate vignettes that use explanations of behaviours within the organisation, the one-year data collection procedure employed seven significant phases in a participatory research design:

1. Designing vignettes for situations describing “collaboration”.

2. Designing vignettes for situations describing “development”.

3. Designing vignettes for situations describing “professionalism”.

4. Design and conduct a pilot survey to test and validate.

5. Evaluating pilot survey and analysis of preliminary findings.

6. Evaluation and presentation of final results.

7. Post-project interviews and reflections.

The seven phases involved two interviewees with extensive experience in strategic QM, operations management, organisational management, and human resource management. The interviewees’ roles included validating the new vignettes within the county’s organisation and selecting pertinent cases within the county. The post-project interviews provided in-depth knowledge that was instrumental in validating the results obtained from the measurements.

To enhance the reliability of the collected data, the research project incorporated three critical prerequisites: (1) formulation of vignettes with tangible actions rather than general perceptions to minimise the risk of variation stemming from respondent assumptions, (2) using explicit statements identifying the leader and customer/stakeholder while conducting the web surveys. This was done to prevent variation owing to assumptions among respondents, and (3) designing the web survey with a limited number of vignettes to restrict the response time to a maximum of 30 min to increase the response rate.

To establish construct validity, twelve principles were used in the process of formulating vignettes that depicted behaviours either promoting or inhibiting the desired organisational culture, see Table 4.

Following Cronemyr et al. (2017), the web-based survey collected data on both current and preferred states. This implies that all vignettes are used twice in the same format with different framings. Initially, respondents assessed the current state of behaviours by responding to the full set of vignettes. Subsequently, they addressed their preferred state using similar vignettes. The disparity between the current and preferred states is of interest because of the diverse contextual conditions in workplaces. Moreover, although data were collected at a single point in time, the study incorporates a temporal perspective through the use of “now” and “preferred” scores, which function as a form of perceptual gap analysis. This approach captures participants’ perceptions of current cultural values alongside their aspirations for future change, thereby providing insight into the desired direction of cultural development. While not a substitute for longitudinal data, this method allows for the identification of value shifts that signal a movement toward a more mature quality culture.

The newly designed web-based survey instrument employed triangulation to ensure construct validity (Cronbach, 1988). In addition, 12 vignettes were created to depict workplace behaviours that promote or inhibit the desired organisational culture, as defined by the organisation’s values. To describe behaviours that foster or hinder organisational culture in the county, five behaviours from the previously developed quality culture instrument were utilised as they were harmonising with the organisational culture of the county. The survey instrument comprised two sections. In the first, respondents assessed the current state of the quality culture as expressed through behaviours. In the second, they indicated their preferred cultural state using the same vignettes. These were incorporated into the existing quality culture survey instrument that included 13 vignettes. Altogether, 25 vignettes were used to assess the organisation’s values in the extended quality culture framework. The measurement instrument, embedded in a digital platform, administers confidential surveys and is designed for organisations to identify and prioritise areas for improvement. The survey emphasises deriving insights into factors that both support and sustain, as well as those hindering, the development of organisational culture, see Figure 1 for an example of how a vignette is presented to the respondents.

In the example above, the behaviour that hinder an organisational culture are presented on the left side, while the behaviour that support an organisational culture are presented on the right side. Throughout the survey, the presentation of supporting and hindering behaviours is randomized between the left and right sides. The study employed a 7-point Likert-type scale, which provided respondents with a neutral option. The survey used the same vignettes twice. First, respondents were asked about current behaviours, and later, they were asked to indicate their preferences. While the study extends the scope of quality to also integrate organisational values translated into behaviours, some behaviours overlap and complement each other. Figure 2 provides a conceptual overview of the relationship among organisational culture, quality culture (TQM values), values, and supporting behaviours. In total, nine values are evaluated in the current study. Additionally, Figure 2 outlines the study’s contextual considerations.

The collected data on preferences were analysed using relative scores based on how respondents rated the nine values (based on preferred behaviours). The value with the highest score (high quality) receives the maximum number (9), which is equivalent to the number of values in the study—hence, 9. The lowest score on preferences (low quality) receives number 1 in the ranking. Hence, each of the scored values (on preferences) is ranked on a scale from 1 to 9.

Similarly, the collected data on variations between respondents' evaluations of preferences were analysed using relative scores based on the variation in how respondents rated the nine values (based on preferred behaviours). The value with the lowest variation (high quality) receives the maximum number in the ranking (9), which is equivalent to the number of values in the study—hence, 9. The highest score on the variation (low quality) between respondents' evaluations of preferences receives number 1 in the ranking.

This method allowed for a standardized assessment of respondents' preferences while accounting for ranking differences. This approach ensures that higher/lower-ranked preferences receive greater weight in the analysis, thereby offering a more nuanced interpretation of the data. Without such a ranking, previous research suggests that results would generally cluster around the middle. This way, the current study also proposes to view the interpretation of values as a transition on a continuum—a seamless progression that transitions gradually from one state to another without distinct breaks or abrupt changes. It represents a spectrum where differences between adjacent points are subtle, yet there is a clear distinction between the extremes. Consequently, the continuum in this study describes the evolution of organisations through viewing values as practical means on how to continuously improve. A quality culture continuum may range from low to high commitment to quality culture and organisational values, with organisations gradually improving their practices rather than making abrupt shifts. Furthermore, understanding continuums this way could help in analysing organisations as complex systems where change occurs progressively, proposing a more nuanced approach to assessment and improvement. By applying a logical framework to the insights, interpretations, and understanding of preferences of workplace behaviour and by correlating these with employee diversity, we delineate four different phases in the transition of values. These are I) No ongoing transformation: status quo; II) Ongoing transformation: no systematic results or trends; III) Ongoing transformation: the emergence of systematic findings and some trends; and IV) Organisational excellence: consciously selected ways of working drive results and trends.

To enhance the validity and credibility of the findings, this study employed a triangulation strategy that integrated data triangulation, methodological triangulation, and investigator triangulation (Denzin, 2017; Yin, 2018). The objective was to ensure that evidence regarding organisational culture and its alignment with quality values was robust, contextually grounded, and not reliant on a single data source or perspective.

Data triangulation was achieved by drawing on multiple sources of evidence across the three case studies—healthcare centre (Case I), service centre (Case II), and call centre (Case III)—within the same county. Although all three operated under the same organisational values and cultural framework, they differed in maturity and functional context. This variation allowed for comparative analysis and ensured that cultural phenomena were examined across diverse operational settings.

Methodological triangulation was established through the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods. The web-based survey provided quantifiable data on current and preferred organisational behaviours linked to values, while the vignettes embedded in the survey offered structured qualitative insights into how these behaviours were understood and interpreted by respondents. Additionally, post-project interviews with strategic management experts allowed for narrative validation of survey results and deeper exploration of contextual meanings behind the findings. This combination of methods enhanced the construct validity of the extended quality culture framework and supported the interpretation of perceptual gap analyses.

Investigator triangulation was implemented by involving two experienced professionals in strategic quality management and human resource development throughout the research process. These individuals participated in the design and validation of vignettes, case selection, and the interpretation of findings. Their involvement ensured that the analysis reflected both academic rigour and practical relevance, reducing the potential for individual researcher bias and strengthening the trustworthiness of the study.

Together, these triangulation strategies ensured a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the organisational culture within the county’s departments. The convergence of multiple data sources, perspectives, and methods allowed the research to build a coherent line of reasoning and establish a high degree of confidence in the study’s conclusions regarding the development and maturity of quality culture.

The results present two key findings. The first addresses how the extended quality culture framework was adapted, while the second provides a comparison of variations among employees in their preferences regarding the extended framework.

Adopting the new extended quality culture framework, which uses 25 vignettes operationalising the quality and organisational culture into behaviours that foster or hinder a desired culture, the first pilot study was conducted in the autumn of 2022. It had a sample of 58 employees in Case I within the county. Subsequent pilot studies for Cases II and III were conducted in spring 2023, involving 38 and 21 employees, respectively. Table 5 presents an overview of the three cases, including their populations and response rates.

In Case I, the pilot survey received 27 responses from 58 respondents, yielding an acceptable response rate of approximately 47% after considering the nonrespondent analysis. Among the employees who did not complete the survey, 28 did not open the survey link, and three respondents began the survey but only answered a few questions. The average completion time for the survey was approximately 19 min, which is considered reasonable for customised studies. Additionally, Case I indicated that all respondents who finished the questionnaire completed the full survey, with the exception of the three aforementioned respondents. Given the survey’s response rate, it appears that if the survey is given priority, for example, through time allocation, the probability of its completion would increase.

The study measures both the current and preferred states of behaviours that impede or promote progress towards a desired organisational culture. The study also facilitates an analysis of the preferred state to better understand how effectively a desired culture is adopted. A high degree of variation exists among respondents (employees) in estimating the current state, which is common. However, there should be a certain variation owing to ongoing organisational culture-related work, and the preferences provide a better understanding of whether the preferred state is adopted. A summary of the preference score and its variation is presented in Table 6. The preference score is computed as the mean response across vignettes corresponding to each specific value. This score is subsequently indexed using the min-max normalization method to a standardized scale ranging from 0 to 100. Variation is quantified using the standard deviation of the indexed preference score. See Table 6.

High variation among employees indicates a need for enhanced dialogue, training, explanation, and coaching regarding the vision for the future (desired and preferred) organisational culture, as well as the behaviours that can support that vision. Conversely, minimal variation and strong preferences among employees indicate a shared understanding of the organisation’s vision and values on how a future organisational culture can be expressed in sustainable behaviours.

The survey results are presented according to six primary quality values (1–6) from the theoretical framework and three organisational values that extend the quality culture framework (7–9) from the empirical case organisation (the county). These values are (1) engaged leadership, (2) decision based on facts, (3) customer orientation, (4) process orientation, (5) everyone’s commitment, (6) continuous improvement, (7) professionalism, (8) development, and (9) cooperation. Figures 3–5 illustrate findings from the multiple case study, followed by an analysis of the variation in the nine values among employees compared with their preferences. The points in the graphs do not indicate absolute numbers and are based on a mutual ranking. The numbers are depicted with a higher rank (1–9) on higher preferences and a higher rank (1–9) on lower variation.

Figures 3–5 illustrate the relative results per unit value. Relative scores (p) were derived by calculating the inverse rank (r) of both variation and preference scores. Consequently, the attribute with the highest preference score and lowest variation is represented by the coordinate (9.9). High preference and low variation indicate that employees exhibit a shared view of the cultural work and the behaviours that foster the desired quality culture. This represents the optimal position for an organisation. High preference and high variation were the second optimal positions, where some employees did not exhibit the same vision of sustainable behaviour even if a majority drives organisational work forward. In these situations, additional training and coaching are required. The third optimal position is low preference and high variation, implying that some employees have adopted the desired position with sustainable behaviour. However, a majority with high variations with respect to expected sustainable behaviours still exist. Finally, the least optimal position is marked by low preference and low variation, where the majority neither accepts nor understands the desired quality culture. This may be owing to factors such as insufficient strategic dialogue and minimal employee engagement.

The discussion provides a detailed analysis of the findings, structured around two key areas. First, in response to RQ1 (How can a quality culture continuum be interpreted to understand positions and transformations within organisations?), a cross-case analysis examines the transition of the nine values along the quality culture continuum, highlighting patterns and shifts across the cases. Second, addressing RQ2 (How can a quality culture, motivated by organisational values, be adopted in organisations?), the analysis explores the contextual dependencies and factors that influence the positioning and evolution of quality cultures within the continuum.

In contemporary organizational studies, the concept of a continuum serves as a powerful analytical tool for examining complex, gradated phenomena such as behavioural preferences and cultural orientation. Rather than treating organizational characteristics as static or dichotomous, a continuum approach captures the incremental and often non-linear progression of behaviours, beliefs, and practices (Cameron and Quinn, 2011; Schein, 2017). This is particularly valuable in the context of quality culture, where variations in organizational commitment to quality are better understood as a matter of degree rather than categorical difference (Dahlgaard-Park, 2012).

Quality culture refers to the shared values, norms, and behaviours that shape an organization’s commitment to quality across all levels. Traditional models tend to characterize quality culture using a limited number of core values—most notably those defined by the TQM literature, which include engaged leadership, decision based on facts, customer orientation, process orientation, everyone’s commitment, and continuous improvement (values 1–6 in current study). These values align closely with TQM principles and have been widely used to assess organizational maturity in quality management in organizations (e.g. Bergman et al., 2022; Cronemyr et al., 2017; Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2002).

However, organizational culture is not solely composed of generic, externally defined values. In practice, many organizations also articulate and act upon a set of unique, strategically defined values that reflect their specific identity, context, and goals (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2015). Recognizing this, our research extends the concept of the quality culture and propose to describe the concept as a quality culture continuum by integrating the generic quality values with three organization-specific values: professionalism, development, and cooperation (values 7–9 in current study). This integration creates a nine-value framework that better captures the full spectrum of quality-related behaviours within an organization and more accurately reflects the organization’s strategic priorities.

By incorporating both standardized and context-specific values, our extended continuum allows for more nuanced positioning of an organization’s current culture, as well as clearer identification of transformational pathways. For example, an organization may demonstrate high alignment with the generic values of TQM values, while also advancing internal priorities such as professional development and cross-functional cooperation. This dual-layered approach enables organizations to locate themselves more precisely along the quality culture continuum and to align improvement initiatives with both external quality benchmarks and internal strategic imperatives (Bateman and David, 2002; Zairi and Youssef, 1995).

Furthermore, this integrated value framework supports transformation by highlighting the motivational drivers behind cultural change. As organizations evolve, transformations along the continuum are not only behavioural but also normative—driven by shifting emphases on particular values (Kotter, 2012). In this way, values function as both anchors and levers for cultural development, shaping not only what organizations do but also why and how they do it (Denison, 2001; Schein, 2017).

By conceptualizing quality culture as a continuum enriched by both established and unique values, this research contributes a flexible yet grounded model for analysing cultural positioning and supporting value-aligned transformation. It underscores the importance of integrating quality frameworks with an organization’s strategic identity, thereby enhancing the relevance, adaptability, and sustainability of quality culture development efforts (Garvin, 1993; Prajogo and Sohal, 2006).

The three cases demonstrate a wide range of variations in cultural transformations because coaching, training, and involvement are different among employees. This further strengthens the notion that when values are given meaning through behaviours as a means of transformation, workplace cultures can differ among departmental units, even when they are located in the same building or corridor. For an overview of the ranking of values, preferences, and their variations for the multiple case study, see Table 7.

Although there is considerable variation among the three cases, the cross-case analysis identifies four pathways of cultural transformation based on value preferences and their associated enabling and obstructing behaviours.: (I) No ongoing transformation: status quo; (II) ongoing transformation: no systematic results or trends; (III) ongoing transformation: the emergence of systematic findings and some trends; and (IV) organisational excellence: consciously selected ways of working drive results and trends (see Figures 6–8).

Case I indicates that most values are undergoing a transition, with none exhibiting low variation and low preference. “Engaged leadership” (1) remains a value that warrants attention. This suggests that the workplace is experiencing a transformation and should prioritise efforts on activities such as involvement, training, and dialogue on behaviours that foster “engaged leadership” (1), “decision based on facts” (2), “everyone’s commitment” (5), and “continuous improvement” (6). Although behaviours that hinder and support organisational culture are identified, the focus should not only be on fostering supportive behaviour to transform the culture but also on activities that eliminate hindering behaviour. Conversely, the value of “cooperation” (9) appears to be a high priority, and the organisation is in a position of “organisational excellence” regarding behaviours deemed supportive for the organisation.

Case II indicates that the values of “everyone”s commitment” (5), “continuous improvement” (6), and “professionalism” (7) have a fairly low variation and low preference. However, “decision based on facts” (2) exhibits the highest variation and is transitioning from phase II to phase III in an ongoing transformation. However, the value does not yet indicate systematic results or trends at the workplace, as interpreted by employees. “Customer orientation” (3) and “development” (8) are the values that have moved into the phase of organisational excellence. “Engaged leadership” (1), “process orientation” (4), and “cooperation” (9) are somewhat in transition from phase III, with an ongoing transformation and the beginnings of systematic results and some trends. However, the variation among employees is still somewhat high.

Case III indicates that “engaged leadership” (1), “everyone’s commitment” (5), and “professionalism” (7) are suffering. By contrast, it is clear that “decision based on facts” (2), “cooperation” (9), and to some extent “development” (8) are values that have been focused on with the effect of high preferences and a movement toward consensus (toward lower variation). Both “customer orientation” (3) and “process orientation” (4) are undergoing a strong transformation toward organisational excellence, with consciously chosen working methods driving results and trends. It will remain important to work on the process to achieve consensus and strive toward organisational excellence by developing leadership behaviours. This can be supported with, for example, communication of vision and strategic “why” reasoning, dialogue in team meetings, training, and coaching.

Analysing the multiple-case study through a contextual perspective suggests that contextual dependency may have implications for ongoing quality cultural development. According to the operations manager in the health care organisation (Case I), an ongoing discussion about quality and organisational culture and values is currently underway at the workplace through previous managers’ commitment. The employee survey may have been a factor that triggered this discourse. However, in the call centre organisation (Case III), the decisive factor is “competing in telephony” for several years (>5 years), where the criteria in the competition have been around behaviours and how this is correlated with customer satisfaction. Competition drives and creates a certain culture in the workplace. Examples of culture developmental activities are systematic work on service policies for new employees, development of values to foster a feeling of participation, conducting training, workshops, and group discussions focusing on the question “What does it mean for us?” Behaviours have also been a regular theme on workplace team agendas. The service centre organisation (Case II) has, since 2018, engaged in the same systematic work as the call centre organisation. However, it has not participated in any competition.

Examining the preferences collectively, the values in the health care case (Case I) have shifted more along the continuum compared with the other two cases, despite the fact they have not had the same long-term systematic organisational culture work as the service centre and call centre organisations. This unexpected finding leads to the following question: what accounts for this? In the case of the health care centre organisation, the reasons are relatively easy to identify because the health care sector is inherently characterised by the following:

1. Patient focus: Health care quality culture is usually characterised by a strong focus on patients and endeavours to provide the best possible care for their needs.

2. Ethical approach: Ethics and morals impact health care and shape quality culture. It involves upholding a high ethical standard in interactions with both patients and employees, operating with integrity and respect, and adhering to professional guidelines and values.

3. Teamwork: Health care often requires collaboration between different professions and disciplines. A quality culture characterised by teamwork implies that an open and collaborative approach exists where different competencies unite to prevent, diagnose, and treat diseases and injuries.

4. Learning and development: Health care is a knowledge-intensive industry where quality cultures characterised by continuous knowledge development and learning are prevalent. This involves promoting research, education, and the further development of employees to ensure the highest quality of care.

5. Hierarchy and authority: In health care, elements of both justified and unjustified hierarchical structures and authority relations exist. The quality culture is characterised by adherence to established routines and rules, as well as respect for authority figures and decision-makers in health care.

6. Emotional connection: Working in health care can be emotionally challenging, as it often involves interacting with people in vulnerable situations. The quality culture should be characterised by compassion, empathy, and support for the emotional well-being of employees.

Overall, this suggests that the influence of contextual and workplace dependencies on quality culture development must be more thoroughly considered when designing activities to foster a supportive quality culture in workplaces. Thus, while one culture may fit all, the efforts to improve may vary, and the investment of time required to achieve the “right culture” may need to follow different paths.

The conclusion highlights the study’s key contributions, addressing its theoretical advancements and practical implications for both scholars and practitioners. Additionally, it discusses the limitations of the research, providing a foundation for future studies to build upon and explore new directions.

By combining preferences with variations among employees across nine different values (1–9), it is possible to increase the awareness of the organisation’s current progress in quality cultural transformation. This emphasises transforming the overall culture of an organisation with a focus on quality principles. It suggests a broader shift in attitudes, values, and behaviours toward quality across the organisation. The patterns of high preference–low variation, high preference–high variation, low preference–high variation, and low preference–low variation followed patterns with different positions in terms of their status. Moreover, these four combinations follow different positions with respect to cultural transformation along a quality culture continuum. This analysis contributes to the ongoing discourse on interpreting, understanding, and managing quality culture, particularly regarding values and their expression as behaviours (Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park, 2006; Martin, 1992). Additionally, this study advances the discourse on studying micro-level quality culture and linking these values to the core work of operations. This aligns with the work of Schein (2009, 2017), Denison (2001), Alvesson (2012), and Najem et al. (2012). This alignment is crucial for operations to foster and contribute to sustainable behaviour within organisations. Furthermore, this study elucidates how measurements of unique organisational values, expressed as sustainable behaviours in accordance with Schein (2017), can be integrated with a quality culture framework, as proposed by Cronemyr et al. (2017).

This study contributes new insights and knowledge regarding methods to examine the relationship between values and behaviours. It extends quality culture measurement research by operationalising an organisation’s values as sustainable behaviours in practice. In conclusion, employees who prioritised the survey completed the questionnaire, whereas one group in the first pilot did not complete the questionnaire. The conclusion from the first case was that the number of vignettes in the questionnaire was not a problem as the questionnaires were opened and completed. Hence, the findings present promising results for a novel approach to managing quality culture by increasing the awareness of behaviours in organisations by operationalising organisational values into measurable behavioural constructs in an extended quality culture framework. This study highlights essential strategies for organisations to enhance their adaptability to the rapidly accelerating pace of societal change. It suggests that it is possible to gauge the effectiveness with which an organisation adopts organisational values expressed as preferred behaviours. Furthermore, it indicates that quality cultural transformations in the workplace may be context-dependent and that professions with specialised knowledge may contribute to broader quality culture transformations. In practice, the twelve principles used to develop construct validity appear applicable to translating values into behaviours and suggest that they can serve as a structured approach for cultural transformation interventions.

This study demonstrates how evaluating organisational culture transformations through behaviours linked to values can enhance societal impact. In public policy, these insights support ethical governance, transparency, and institutional trust by guiding workplace reforms and civic engagement initiatives. In education, integrating values-based leadership and ethical decision-making into curricula fosters responsible future leaders and strengthens institutional cultures. Additionally, schools and universities can apply this framework to assess and improve their internal culture. In regulatory frameworks, the findings inform corporate governance standards, industry-specific guidelines, and ESG policies (Environmental, Social, and Governance), ensuring organisations embed ethical behaviour into their operations rather than relying on superficial values statements. By positioning cultural transformation within the quality culture continuum, this research highlights how progressive shifts in values-driven behaviours contribute to integrity, accountability, and sustainable development in organisations and society.

Regarding generalisations, the study demonstrates that applying the extended quality culture framework provides valuable theoretical and contextual insights. The findings suggest that the framework’s constructs are applicable in real-world settings and highlight variations in quality culture across different organisational types, offering practical implications for practitioners. This study was limited to three cases within an organisation representing a public county, which lays the groundwork for future research proposals.

First, future research should concentrate on case studies within private business organisations. In accordance with the defined organisational values and their implementation, the current survey instrument provides a solid basis for case studies in the private sector, particularly in environments where values are utilised in strategic dialogues. Second, future research should examine the transition of values. Although transformations are often portrayed as positive, progressive shifts toward organisational excellence, they presuppose leadership and team efforts that consistently nurture a supportive quality culture. Equally important is the avoidance of behaviours that hinder the quality of culture. Failing that, the risk of regression on the quality culture continuum is evident. Hence, different movements on the quality culture continuum would better position leaders and decision-makers to transform the quality culture within an organisation. A future research agenda is proposed to include longitudinal assessments to evaluate actual cultural evolution over time. Finally, to further explore the quality culture continuum, future research should elaborate on the interquartile range (IQR). This will enhance the continuum model’s ability to explore positions and transformations along the continuum, providing a more precise measurement of variability and identifying shifts in organisational quality culture.

Anders Fundin: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review and Editing, Visualisation, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition Ingela Bäckström: Conceptualisation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review and Editing Pernilla Ingelsson: Conceptualisation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review and Editing Kristen Snyder: Conceptualisation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review and Editing Love Westin: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Data Curation, Visualisation.

The authors would like to thank the county for its commitment and sincere interest in this study. We are also grateful to the reviewers who helped us improve earlier versions of the manuscript.