Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Six Sigma failures: An escalation model

  • Published:
Operations Management Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the pervasiveness of Six Sigma programs, there is rising concern regarding the failure of many Six Sigma programs. One explanation for many Six Sigma failures could be escalation of commitment. Escalation of commitment refers to the propensity of decision-makers to continue investing in a failing course of action. Many researchers have applied escalation of commitment to explain the behavior of individuals, groups, companies, and nations. Using the escalation of commitment model (Staw and Ross 1987a; Ross and Staw Acad. Manag. J. 36:701–732 1993) as a basis, this research describes a Six Sigma failure in an electrical components company. In documenting this failure, this research contributes in two ways, both in the practice and in the theory of Six Sigma. First, while examining the Six Sigma failure, this research uncovers important factors for successful implementation, which should improve the practice of Six Sigma. Second, academic research (e.g., Schroeder et al. J. Oper. Manag, 26:536–554 2008; Zu et al. J. Oper. Manag, 26:630–650 2008) is engaged in uncovering the definition of Six Sigma, and its differences from other improvement programs. This research provides a new direction to academic research and has the potential to impact the theory of Six Sigma.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguayo R (1990) Dr Deming The American Who Taught the Japanese about Quality. Carol Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Angel DC, Pritchard C (2008) Where ‘Six Sigma’ went wrong. Transp Topics. June, 5.

  • Antony J, Antony FJ, Kumar M, Cho BR (2007) Six Sigma in service organizations: Benefits, challenges and difficulties, common myths, empirical observations and success factors. Int J Oper Prod Man 24:294–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkes HR, Blumer C (1985) The psychology of sunk costs. Org Behav Hum Deci Processes 35:124–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman T (1983) Resource allocation after success and failure: The role of attributes of powerful others and probabilities of future success. Working Paper, Dep of Manag, Texas A&M University, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockner J (1992) The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward theoretical progress. Acad Manage Rev 17:39–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg M (2006) Six Sigma shortcomings. Industrial Eng, October, 45.

  • Bowen MG (1987) The escalation phenomenon reconsidered: Decision dilemmas or decision errors. Acad Manage Rev 12:52–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger JM (1986) Desire for control and the illusion of control-The effects of familiarity and sequence of outcomes. J Res in Personality 20:66–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson JS, Sutcliffe KM (1995) Work history and selective perception: Fine-tuning what we know. Acad Manag Best Papers Proceedings, Vancouver, British Columbia (Canada), August 6–9:459–463.

  • Chakravorty SS, Shah A (2010) Lean Six Sigma (LSS): An Implementation Experience, Coles College of Business Working Paper Series. Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakravorty SS (2009) Six Sigma programs: An implementation model. Int J Prod Econ 119:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravorty SS, Hales DN (2008) The evolution of manufacturing cells: An action research study. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 188:153–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravorty SS, Atwater JB (2006) Bottleneck Management: Theory and Practice. Prod Plan Control 17:441–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravorty SS, Hales DN (2004) Implications of cell design implementation: A case study and analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 152:602–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conlon EJ, Parks JM (1987) Information requests in the context of escalation. J Appl Psychology 72:344–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daum MS (2008) Three quality data traps. Quality, February: 40–45. http://www.qualitymag.com/

  • Dearborn DC, Simon HA (1958) Selective perception: A note on the departmental identification of executives. Sociometry 21:140–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhaime IM, Schwenk CR (1985) Conjectures on cognitive simplification in acquisition and divestment decision making. Acad Manage Rev 10:287–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deming ED (1986) Out of the Crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Draman RH, Chakravorty SS (2000) An evaluation of quality improvement project selection alternatives. Quality Manag J 7:58–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards JC (2001) Self-fulfilling prophesy and escalating commitment: Fuel for the Waco fire. J of Appl Behavioral Sc 37:343–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans JP, Lindsay WM (2008) Managing for Quality and Performance Excellence, 7th edn. South-Western, Mason

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng Q, Manuel CM (2007) Under the knife: A national survey of six sigma programs in US healthcare organizations. Int J HealthC Quality Assur 21:535–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Raw Peterson, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster ST (2007) Does Six Sigma Improve Performance? Quality Mang J 14:7–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Gijo EV, Rao TS (2005) Six Sigma implementation-hurdles and more hurdles. Total Quality Manag 16:721–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray CF, Larson EW (2006) Project Management, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta P (2008) Reducing the cost of failures. Quality, January: 22–22. http://www.qualitymag.com/

  • Harry MJ, Schroeder R (2006) Six Sigma: The breakthrough management strategy revolutionizing the world’s top corporations. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey JH, Weary G (1985) Attribution: Basic Issues and applications. Academic, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastorf AH, Cantril H (1954) They saw a game: A case study. J of Abnorm Soc Personality 49:129–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth RM (1987) Judgment and Choice: The psychology of decision, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindo B (2007) At 3M, A Struggle between efficiency and creativity. Business Week, June 11.

  • Hindo B, Grow B (2007) Six Sigma: So yesterday. Business Week, June 11.

  • Hu G, Wang L, Fetch S, Bidanda B (2008) A multi-objective portfolio selection to implement lean and six sigma concepts. Int J Prod Res 46:6611–6625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson S, Nicki R (2003) A new instrument to measure cognitive distortions in video lottery terminal users: The information biases scale (IBS). J of Gambl Stud 19:387–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones EE, Kannouse DE, Kelly HH, Nisbett RE, Valins S , Weiner, B (eds.) (1972) Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior, General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ.

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An Analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1984) Choice, values, and frames. Am. Psychol. 39:341–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanji GK (2008) Reality check of six sigma for business excellence. Total Quality Manag 19:575–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keil M, Depledge G, Rai A (2007) Escalation: The role of problem recognition and cognitive bias. Dec Sci 38:391–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kernan M, Lord R (1989) The effects of explicit goals and specific feedback on escalation preferences. J Appl Psychology 19:1125–1143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer EJ (1975) The illusion of control. J Personality Soc Psychology 32:311–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer EJ, Roth J (1975) Heads I win, tails it’s chance: The illusion of control as a function of the sequence of outcomes in a purely chance task. J Personality Soc Psychology 32:951–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liker JK (2004) The Toyota Way: 14 Management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mader DP (2007) How to identify and select lean six sigma projects. Quality Prog 40:58–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcadam R, Evans A (2004) Challenge to six sigma in a high technology mass-manufacturing environments. Total Quality Manag 15:699–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCain BE (1986) Continuing investment under conditions of failure: A laboratory study of the limits to escalation. J of Appl Psychology 71:280–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meredith J, Mantel S (2008) Project Management: A managerial approach, 7th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Motwani J, Kumar A, Antony J (2004) A business process change framework for examining the implementation of six sigma:a case study of Dow Chemicals. TQM Mag 16:273–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullavey F (2005) Shackled by bad six sigma. Quality Dig, September. http://www.qualitydigest.com/sept05/articles/03_article.shtml

  • Northcraft GB, Neale MA (1986) Opportunity costs and the framing of resource allocation decisions. Org Behav Hum Dec Processes 37:348–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyzdek T (2003) The Six Sigma Handbook: A complete guide for green belts, black belts, and managers at all levels. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Reidenbach RE, Goeke RW (2007) Six Sigma, value and competitive strategy. Quality Prog 40:45–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberto MA (2002) Lessons from Everest: The interaction of cognitive bias, psychological safety, and system complexity. California Manag Rev 45:136–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross J, Staw BM (1986) Expos 86: An escalation prototype. Admin Sci Q 31:274–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross J, Staw BM (1993) Organizational escalation and exit: Lessons from the shoreham nuclear power plant. Acad Manag J 36:701–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin JZ, Brockner J (1975) Factors affecting entrapment in waiting situations: The Rosencrantz and Guildenstern effect. J Personality Soc Psychology 31:1054–1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savolainen T, Haikonen A (2007) Dynamics of organizational learning and continuous improvement in six sigma implementation. TQM Mag. 19:6–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder RG, Linderman K, Liedtke C, Choo AS (2008) Six Sigma: definition and underlying theory. J Oper Manag 26:536–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snee RD (2007) Managing Six Sigma’s most profound change of all: A new way of thinking. ASQ Six Sigma Forum Mag 6:41–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw BM (1976) Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Org Behav Hum Perform 16:27–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staw BM (1981) The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Acad Manage Rev. 6:577–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staw BM, Hoang H (1995) Sunk costs in the NBA; why draft order affects playing time and survival in professional basketball. Admin Sci Q 40:474–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staw BM, Fox F (1977) Escalation: Some determinants to a previously chosen course of action. Hum Relations 30:431–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staw BM, Ross J (1987a) Understanding escalation situations: Antecedents, prototypes, and solutions. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, 9. JAI, Greenwich, pp 39–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw BM, Ross J (1987b). Knowing when to pull the plug. Harvard Bus rev, March: 65–72.

  • Sutton C (2006) Getting the most out of Six Sigma. Quality, March: 46–48. http://www.qualitymag.com/

  • Szeto AYT, Tsang AHC (2005) Antecedent to successful implementation of Six Sigma. Int J Six Sigma and Competitive Advant 1:307–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teger AI (1980) Too Much Invested To Quit. Pergamon, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari MK, Antony J, Montgomery DC (2008) Editorial note for special issue on ‘effective decision support to implement lean and six sigma methodologies in the manufacturing and service sectors”. Int J Prod Res 46:6563–6566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte G (1986) Escalating commitment to a course of action: A reinterpretation. Acad Manage Rev 11:311–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wurtzel M (2008) Reasons for six sigma deployment failures. BPMinstitute. June. http://www.bpminstitute.org/articles/article/article/reasons-for-six-sigma-deployment-failures.html

  • Zimmerman JP, Weiss J (2005) Six Sigma’s seven deadly sins. Quality, January: 62–67. http://www.qualitymag.com/

  • Zhang L (2006) Early warning signs of project failure. Proj Manag J 14:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Zu X, Fredendall LD, Douglas TJ (2008) The evolving theory of quality management: The role of six sigma. J Oper Manag 26:630–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Michael J. Coles College of Business, Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastain Rd., Kennesaw, GA, 30144-5591, USA

    Satya S. Chakravorty

Authors
  1. Satya S. Chakravorty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satya S. Chakravorty.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chakravorty, S.S. Six Sigma failures: An escalation model. Oper Manag Res 2, 44–55 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-009-0020-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-009-0020-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation