TQM: Core Paradigm Changes

Robert T. Amsden, Thomas W. Ferratt, and Davida M. Amsden

T otal Quality Management continues to

be 3 much-debated approach to manag- ing organizations. At the core of this de- bate lies 3 serious failure on the part of many to recognize that TQM is different in essence from

classical and conventional m:magement in 130th theory and practice.

Unfortunately. many business people and academicians regard the development and prac-

tice of TQM as an evolutionary process rathe than a revolutionary one. &cause they view it from within the conventional management para- digm. its elements appear to be simply 3 l&d of certain concepts. techniques. and principles that can be incorporated into the already existing management system. These concepts are simply add-ons, they believe-nice to do if the or#aniza- tion has the time and resources for them. Then. should things become tight, they can e:lsily IX dropped.

It is our contention that this evoluti0n:ii-y view of TQM is at the root of why many claim it doesn’t work. Such people fail to see that TQM &parts radically from conventional management theories and pr:lctice. that it actually represents ;i shift to a new and different paradigm. This is the single largest impediment to understanding its real significance.

THE PARADIGM CHANGE

) 1 4 homas S. ~+_hn 11~ carried out seminal

1 work in the area of paradigms in the context of science. It is especially impor-

tant for those of us in business to study Kuhn’s work because most of us function from within the paradigm of the conventional management model. The origins of this paradigm are found in

the writings of early classical management practi- tioners, such as Frederick W. Taylor, Henri Fayol. and Chester I. Barnard.

Kuhn (1970) defines two characteristics of scientific discovery:

[It1 w;Is sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity. Simultaneo~isly, it was sufficiently open-ended to leave 311 sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to solve.

Achie\,emcnts that share these two characteristics I shall henceforth refer to as “paradigms.” 2 term that relates closely to “normal science.” Dy choosing it, I mean to suggest that some accepted examples of actual scientific practice- examples \vhich include law, theory, application. and instrumentatioti to- gether-provide models from which spring p;Lrticular coherent traditions of scientific research.

According to Joel Barker (1992). a paradigm is “, .I set of rules and regulations (written or un- written) th2t does two things: (1) it establishes 01 defines boundaries: and (3) it tells you how to behave inside the l~oundaries in order to bc su-

cessful.” In conventional management, we see ;I system of principles, concepts. and philosophies that governs how business is to be conducted. For example. :I central concept is the practice of a hierarchical organizational structure. Those n-ho ~~mild dare suggest 3 non-hierarchical structure -\l-odd have a hard time gaining credence. This is lxzcausc hitxuchy is so basic to classical manage- ment that 3 departure from it would be virtually unthinkable.

TQM has definitely attracted an enthusiastic group of dierents away from competing man- agement methoclologies. Witness the fenor of such companies as Motorola or Harley-Davidson. Moreover, TQM brings out a wealth of new prob

lems to solve, such as how customers share pro- prietary information with suppliers. If we follow Barker’s definition, we find in TQM a body of principles, a set of rules and regulations estab- lishing boundaries and describing how one should work in order to be successful. From this perspective, TQM does represent a new para- digm.

Evidence Of A Paradigm Change: Japan

Corroborative evidence for a paradigm shift in management is easier to see if we study a signifi- cant change in management theory and practice that occurred outside our Western culture. During the IC)~OS, the Japanese developed a different type of management that they coupled to their practice of quality control. This new style, which they called Company Wide Quality Control (CWQC), became the forerunner of TQM. For the Japanese, CWQC clearly came to represent a paradigm different from management as practiced in the West. Indeed, the term was coined to dis- tinguish their management practices from Total Quality Control, A.V. Feigenbaum’s phrase. The Japanese clearly recognized that CWQC differed significantly from what Feigenbaum had pro- posed.

As shown in Figure 1, by 1968 the Japanese had noted six characteristics in their practice of quality control that in their view were quite dif- ferent from Western practices. Kaoru Ishikawa, a leader of the quality movement in Japan, pointed out in 1981 that “Japanese-style quality control was distinguished from the quality control prac- ticed in the West.” By 1987, as shown in Figure 1, the distinguishing characteristics had grown to ten. It should be noted that these contrasts are what the Japanese observed, for it was they who saw a new set of management principles at work-in effect, a paradigtn shift, though they did not use that exact term.

As the philosophical underpinning for the management revolution represented by these characteristics. Ishikawa lists the following six points:

1. Quality first, not profit. 2. Consumer-oriented QC, not producer-

oriented QC. 3. The next process is the consumer. 4. Talk with facts and data: application of

statistical methods. 5. Management that respects humanity: in-

dustrial democracy. 6. Functional management.

All of these characteristics and underlying phi- losophies point to fundamental changes in the rules of business-a paradigm shift. As Ishikawa pointed out in explaining his first philosophical point, “If we put emphasis on quality first, long-

TQM: Core Paradigm Changes

term profit will increase. But if we put emphasis on short-term profit, we must lose in a long-term international contest and lose long-term profit.” He added that in the United States, the SEC re- quirement of quarterly reports “makes the man- agers more short-sighted.” Top managers, he said, must be evaluated over the long term in- stead. “For example,” he maintained, “if the presi- dent, manager, or factory manager is not evalu- ated by the broad observation of three years or five years of his business results, he is aiming at short-term benefits and forgetting the idea of ‘quality first.“’

These statements are clearly at odds with much of current Western financial practice. Again, we cannot stress too strongly that this analysis comes from the Japanese. All we are doing here is categorizing as a new paradigm what they described.

Is There A Paradigm Change In The United States?

CWQC changed how the Japanese managed their businesses. In the same way, and for some of the same reasons, the move from traditional manage- ment to TQM implies a radical change for West- ern management theory and practice. There is evidence of a paradigm change in Japan, but is there evidence for one in the West?

Figure 1 Distinguishing Characteristics Of Japanese Quality Control

1968 1987

1. CWQC: Involves 311 depart- 1. QC activities: All departments and all ments and all employees employees led hy top management.

2. Enthusiasm for QC 2. Widespread acceptance of the “quality education and training. first” principle in management.

3. QC circle activities. 3. Policy deployment and management by policy.

4. QC audits: The Deming Application Prize and 4. The QC audit. company presidents’ audits.

5. Quality assurance from planning and 5. IJse of statistical methods: development to sales and sewice.

The Seven QC Tools as well as advanced methods. 6. QC circle activities.

6. National QC promotion 7. QC education and training. campaigns.

8. Development and application of QC methods.

9. The extension of QC from manufac- turing to other industries.

10. National QC promotion campaigns.

In the United States, several firms appear to ously improving these goals is not a pervasive have moved solidly into TQM. Motorola, one of value in their discussion. In his review of the the very first to win the Malcolm Baldrige Na- effects of participation, Wagner (1994) focuses on tional Quality Award, pursues “six-sigma,” a qual- the goals of performance and satisfaction, saying, ity term that describes the firm’s internal strategy “In most research on participation, performance for meeting the goal of customer satisfaction. is defined in terms of individual-level production Ford Motor Company has granted its Ql certifica- quantities and measured by self-reports, super- tion/award to a coal mining company. Was the visor’s ratings, or output counts.” Conspicuous by reason for this “maximization of shareholder its absence is continuous improvement as an value”? We think not. Rather, it was Ford’s desire underlying value or goal. to “satisfy customers” through a holistic system.

A. number of authors have contrasted TQM

one that goes as far back through the supply

with the current management model, showing

chain as possible-to the company that takes the coal from the ground. At Xerox, another Baldrige Award winner well known for its TQM efforts,

how the latter misses vital points of TQM. One of

the role of the supervisor or manager with re- spect to subordinates has changed from trad-

these authors, W.H. Waddell (1992), describes the

tional director to coach. Harley-Davidson is yet another example of a company famous for its quality initiatives.

A recent issue of the Academy of Manage-

elude, he contends, is continuous improvement-

ment Review devoted to an examination of TQM underscores the absence of TQM concepts in conventional management, especially continuous

a key concept in the propositions he develops.

improvement. D.A. Waldman (1994) specifically challenges readers: “When conceptualizing the

Only very recently has such research even begun

determinants of work performance, it may be

to consider this crucial TQM concept.

especially beneficial to include concepts and ideas being put forth by TQM proponents such as Deming and Juran.” Among the ideas to in-

current. conventional management model as

the conventional m&gement model f1ow.s out

having been developed by Alfred Sloan for Gen-

of one primary objective, maximizing shareholder

em1 Motors early in this century. The model, he points out, man-

wealth. whereas in TQM the primary objective “is

ages by the numbers “because every relevant aspect of the op- eration flow[s] to and from the accounting system.” This, he says, is a different dri\,er from what we find in TQM. Grant, Shani. and Krishnan (1994) refer to conven- tional management as the “other [paradigm] what we call the ‘economic model of the firm,’ m-hich is based on the principles of maximizing shareholder value.” They contend that everything in

TQM: Evolution Or Revolution In The United States?

Scientists, writes Kuhn, have difficulty recogniz- ing a paradigm shift. They are likely to view sci-

ally experienced a major paradigm shift in sci-

ence as an evolutionary process and thus fail to see past changes from one paradigm to another.

ence. If they do, very likely they are quick to

There are two reasons for this. Histories of sci- ence are written backward by people who look

dismiss it as ;I time of great frustration and do not

into the past and think they see an evolutionary process. These writers do not understand the radical leaps-the paradigm changes-science has taken. As a result. the history books read by new scientists offer only an evolutionary interpre- tation. Second. most of the scientists, as well as the writers of science history, have never person-

providing customer satisfacti&.” For our part, we claim that continuous im-

provement is a key element of TQM and not so in conventional management. This claim is baSed

not only on many years of interacting with prac- ticing managers, reading and teaching from text- books, and conducting research, but also on a careful review of current texts and research. The question guiding research has not been focused on the TQM goal: “Does participation (empower- ment ) lead to continuous impro\,ement?” The literature is dominated instead by the conven- tional goals of effectiveness and efficiency, pro- ducti\-ity and performance. Ivancevich et al. (1994) note that goals can be “stated in terms of production, efficiency, and satisfaction”: continu-

recognize it for what it is. Kuhn’s observations about scientists strikingly

parallel Western managers. When business re- searchers discuss TQM, they generally consider it an addition to, or an e\rolution of, traditional Western management theory and practice. Al- though they may have witnessed the effects of TQM in organizations external to their own, they have done so from inside the older management paradigm. But &serving the effects from this perspective is not the same as experiencing the new paradigm from within it. To understand the differences between TQM and conventional man- agement, you must be willing to suspend your current way of thinking. You must step outside your paradigm.

CONTENT OF THE PARADIGM SHIFT

T otal Quality Management is a system of interacting attributes. Some of them are new to management theory and practice;

others are not. The interaction of these various attributes represents a new system. Those we list do interact synergistically and thus form one coherent system. We compare and contrast these elements and their interactions with conventional management practice and theory.

Six Major Interacting Attributes of TQM

Different sources describe the defining character- istics of TQM differently. Based on our studies and understanding of TQM, organizations and systems adopting this style of managing generally display the following traits:

1. They focus on satisfying customers, both internal and external.

2. They consider a holistic, balanced, and integrated system for satisfying internal and exter- nal customer needs.

3. They manage the system holistically so as to continuously improve the satisfaction of inter- nal and external customer needs.

4. People are empowered. 5. All members in all functions at all levels of

the organization use the Plan, Do, Check, Act/ Standardize (PDCA/s) model as a learning meth- odology in every business activity.

6. Senior management exhibits dynamic leadershzp to create an environment that fosters the above five attributes.

These attributes comprise our model for TQM and are not necessarily synonymous with those of any particular TQM expert.

Attributes 1, 2, and 4 did not originate with TQM. The focus on satisfying external customers has been a defining characteristic of organizations that adopt a customer-oriented marketing con- cept The necessity of considering an organiza- tion as a complete system originated with sys- tems theory and has been applied to managing organizations. Empowerment of individuals has been a basic tenet in the human relations move- ment for some time, when individuals are acting independently and when they work in teams.

Once again, in TQM, all the elements interact synergistically. We cannot stress this point too strongly. No one element can be omitted without destroying the system.

Attribute 1. Focus on satisfying customers, both internal and external.

Focusing on satisfying the end customer has been espoused by marketers. TQM has redefined cus- tomer to include the next person in the internal

process as well as the final purchaser or user. Moreover, satisfying the customer is elevated in TQM. It is the aim for everything one does. It is the “Quality First” of Japan. It is Grant et al.‘s primary objective of “providing customer satisfac- tion.”

When we look at the work of classical theo- rists such as Taylor, Fayol, and Barnard, we find an altogether different focus. Tavlor concentrated on the efficiency of the production operation to maximize prosperity. As he wrote, “The principle object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum pros- perity for each employee

. [which is1 the result of the greatest possible pro- ductivity of men and ma- chines of the establish- ment.” One wonders what Taylor’s work would have looked like had he em- phasized customer satis- faction The prevailing paradigm probably would have rejected his efforts out of hand.

Fayol was primarily interested in developing a coherent organization that could show a profit. His objective was, in a sense, “to clean the house within” by determining those organizational prin- ciples that are required for a business to show a profit. Satisfying the customer, which was periph- eral to his work, was important only to the extent that an organization had to satisfy the customer enough to make a profit.

Barnard concentrated on the tasks of the executive: planning, communications, and in- ducements or contributions. He was interested in establishing an organization and its system as- pects. Customer satisfaction was not a major con- sideration. His remark that “ltlhere exists in the social field no such powerful magnifier as the balance sheet” would indicate that he saw pursuit of profit as the primary objective of business.

Attribute 2. Consider a holistic, balanced, and integrated system for satisfying internal and ex- ternal customers’ needs.

Again, the concept of a system of management is not new. What is new in TQM is the application of the system concept with the end purpose of satisfying internal and external customers. One must recognize that in TQM the concept of sys- tem is broader than in conventional management. System now extends from supplier through cus- tomer, from design through product disposal.

TQM: Core Paradigm Changes

Among the classical writers wt‘ find no em- phasis on system design as a means to satisfy customers-not even the end customer. Taylor studied efficiency within the organization. Fayol struggled with developing the [~r~ni~~ti[)n to be managed profitably. It is worth noting that Fayol held strongly to the concept of unity of command, in which “an employee should receive orders from one superior only.” TQM cannot function under such an aegis. It follows more closely what Mary Parker Follett descrihcd in 1937 as “the situation dictating who does what.” Barnard’s functions of the executive are concerned with effectively running the organization, more as an end in itself rather than as a means to customer satisfaction.

This attribute is new. Conventional management and TQM both strive for effectiveness, efficiency, and a~ptati(~n. But TQQIM in~~~rpo~t~s ~~~I~tinuoLls improvement as a fourth goal, which, again, is not mcntionecl by the classical writers. Taylor strove to develop efficient methods that pursued fixed, specific goals, rather than continuously improving ones. Once the efficient method wits in place, no further d~~,~l~~prnent was required, and none was expected.

A good example of this would be his work with the manual loading of pig iron. Taylor worked to develop a scientifically designed method whereby a man could load 47 tons of pig iron per day-an incrrasr over the previous rate of 12.5 tons pf2r day. Once the method was de- veloped, it became the job of management to retrain the workers and have them all use the ne~v methodology. This meant loading 47 tons per nun per da);: no Illore. no less. llntil Taylor or another expert c‘;lme along and developed a new ttiethod. no ch;tngc from this new rate was expected.

Static Versus Dynamic Equiiibrium-What Is Different About Continuous Improvement

Given the unique ~~)ntril~Lltion of ~~~ntil~Ll~~~ls improvement, xx-t2 need to discuss this topic in more detail. As \ve ha\~ said, continuous in- provemc>nt is :I per\~;lsi\~e. underlying value or goal of TQM. but not of conventional manage- ment. By definition, people in organizations im- l-tueti with TQM ~~~~1tinLlously seek to improve processes and achieve higher levels of efftctive- nc’ss. efficiency, and adaptability. Those in com- panies governed by c‘onventional management. however. do not necessarily seek such improve- 111ent.

Organizational designs and practices are established to achieve a firm’s goals. Those that continuously strive to improve their effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptability are likely to have different designs and practices than others. (For example, TQM organizations tend to be flatter, with fewer levels of management.) Based on this critical difference in the two paradigms, we char- acterize organizations with conventional manage- ment as seeking static ttquilibrium. TQM organi- zations, on the other hand, seek dynamic equilib- Cum.

The contrast between static and dynamic equilibrium is especially evident in the planning and control cycle of both types of organization. With the traditional approach, many of the firm’s activities remain the same, and no changes are planned (see Figure 2). In some activities, how- ever, change may be planned carefully to take phce over a specified period, such as one year. Planners may propose such a change because they recognize the need to adapt to a changing environment or because their goals have altered. In static ~quilil~ri~iln. however, planners are not necessarily predisposed to initiate change for the sake of improvement. Moreover, planned change is generally oricmted toward improving perfor- mtrnce measures rather than the whole system.

Figure 2 Static Equilibrium: Part 1

Targt‘t _----------.

Time

Figure 3 Static Equilibrium: Part 2

Time

To reach the new target of performance, the planners first map out the change. When it is implemented, any shift in performance occurs as a discrete event (see Figure 3). The objective is to maintain this new equilibrium throughout the remainder of the planning period and even into the future. There is no provision for improving performance beyond the planned change.

Conventional management of an organiza- tional system involves assessing the competitive market environment, setting target levels of per- formance for some planning horizon, and at- tempting to meet those targets. Within this hori- zon, meeting the target is a primary motivator of behavior; the focus is on performing at a level that is good enough to meet the targets. And tar- gets rarely change within the planning horizon; they may change between horizons, though not necessarily. As conventional wisdom has it, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Any changes concentrate on maintaining effectiveness and efficiency.

Dynamic equilibrium is fundamentally differ- ent. TQM holds that the entire system is never good enough. The goal in TQM is to keep on improving-that is, to pursue a dynamic rather than a static equilibrium. Many processes will be subject to improvement activities, with results such as those shown in Figure 4; in others, pre- vious improvements will be consolidated. In most processes, changes resulting from improvement activities simply consist of many small, discrete moves that may occur so frequently as to seem continuous.

Some may argue that a TQM philosophy incorporating the core concept of continuous improvement will preclude large incremental improvements. This is not an easy issue to re- solve. (Indeed, it may be one of those “problems for the redefined group of practitioners to solve,” as Kuhn says.) Although many-perhaps even most-improvements will be incremental, some will represent major breakthroughs. Remember, TQM firms are always looking to improve every- thing with which they are associated, so the im- provements they do make will generally be small and incremental, which are relatively easy to manage. Variations in the process can be continu- ally reduced to the point of defects measured in parts per million (ppm), even parts per billion (ppb). (It is critical to recognize that ppm, and even ppb, are important to achieve in TQM pri- marily because they effect customer satisfaction.)

Occasionally, though, a firm needs to imple- ment large, sometimes very innovative, changes, which by their very nature are more difficult to manage. With large changes, variations in parts and processes “blow up” so that it is harder to achieve ppm defects. Consequently, large innova- tive changes are the exception in TQM, not the rule. This raises questions regarding business

process reengineering, which appears rather to patch problems in the old paradigm by means of a

Figure 4 Dynamic Equilibrium

one-time “Big Fix.” In other words, why would one want or need to reengineer a process if one had been making continuous improve- ment to it all along?

Attribute 4. Empowerpeople. (.WIuq~ processe.5

As stated earlier, this at- tribute has been a tenet in improuementl

the human relations move- ment for some time. Implicit in Attribute 3 is the concept that everyone in the system Time is involved in continuously improving it. All individuals within the system, whether an accounts receiv- able manager or a machine operator, work to keep bettering every aspect of everything they do. Enabling everyone in the organization to do this requires training, opportunity, and responsi- bility for decision making, with the concomitant accountability, mutual respect, and trust-in other words, empowerment.

Although Taylor propounded “maximum prosperity for each employee,” basic respect for human dignity toward hourly workers was lack- ing. This is evident in his description of the selec- tion and training of a man for the new pig iron loading methodology. In general, Taylor used the scientific method on people. He did not respect first-level workers enough to ask them to use it themselves. He valued their brawn more than their brains.

Fayol held that management “is neither an exclusive privilege nor a particular responsibility of the head or senior members of the business; it is an activity spread, like all other activities, be- tween head and members of the body corpo- rate.” This suggests that everyone in the organiza- tion, from CEO to line worker, was to act as a manager. But in practice this did not happen. A strict distinction between hourly workers and management has always been assiduously main- tained in classical management.

Barnard pointed to a powerful tension be- tween two forces, believing that “the expansion of cooperation and the development of the indi- vidual are mutually dependent realities, and that a due proportion or balance between them is a necessary condition of human welfare.” The first, “cooperation,” entails giving up personal free- doms, as is required by joining an organization. The second, “development of the individual,” means exercising personal freedom. TQM pro-

TQM: Core Paradigm Changes 11

vides a better balance between the two. How it does this is one of those problems Kuhn pre- dicted would be present in a new paradigm.

Attribute 5. AN rnern~~~ i?~ a~~~l~~~ctions at alf levels of the organization use the Plan, Do, Check, Act/Stcwadardize (PDCMSI model as a learning methodology in eve y business activiol.

Conventional management and TQM contain essentially the same elements for the planning and control cycle. In both paradigms, plans are made and then executed. Controlling, which includes feedback and appropriate follow-up measures to assure complete implementation of the plans, is also exercised.

Dynamic equilibrium in TQM combines com- mon planning and control elements in a non- traditional manner. It requires that all members of the system constantly apply a learning methodol- ogy to every business activity. Because TQM differs so radically from conventional manage- ment in how it implements the elements of the planning and control cycle, we will examine this point in more depth.

In the process of pursuing dynamic equilib- rium. changing something is viewed as an experi- ment, not just as an attempt to achieve planned goals. Tbepurpose of the experiment is to learn through testing theories. To that end, the PDCA/S model entails the foilowing:

* Plan comprises both the statement of theory and the planning of an experiment to test the theory.

l Do is the execution of the experiment. l Check monitors and analyzes the experi-

ment to see whether the theory is substantiated or refuted, in part or totally.

l Act/Standardize has a dual function. The Act step adjusts the theory when evidence found during Check indicates that the theory is flawed. When the theory has been materially substanti- ated, the Standardize step implements those tech- niques, procedures, or practices designed to maintain the Do step so that it can he repeated and improvement can build on current accom- plishments. (Standardize is the same as &ran’s control function.)

l After both Act and Standardize, the PDCAiS cycle repeats.

Thus, any business decision-to change tool- ing, to implement a new technology, to continue using the same design for a product or process- is an experiment. The point is that in TQM, ev- erything one does is to be viewed as the out- come of a theory. So people must analyze their activities and decisions to see whether their theo- ries actually have been substantiated when imple- mented. TQM requires management by fact: that is. management decisions must be leased on data,

not on mere guesses or opinions. In TQM the emphasis is not on doing something just because it works, but on learning both what works and why. As a result, the organization can appfy its collective intellect to i~nproving ali business ac- tivities.

Practitioners of TQM stress the importance of everyone in the system carefully following the steps outlined in the dynamic equilibrium pro- cess. Those who perform the Do step are also expected to carry out Plan, Check, and Act. In conventional management practice, on the other hand, individuals known as “managers” (or their surrogates) plan, check, and act while individuals known as “workers” do. In fact, although theo- retically part of a traditional manager’s responsi- bility, in practice the Check and Act steps are often omitted or treated superficially. For Taylor, only top management is responsible for P, C, and A/S; workers merely do as they are told. Fayol held that the effectiveness of workers inspecting their own work was suspect. To the contrary, however, self-inspection by hourly employees has been part of employee involvement for some time, In TQM, everyone is expected to learn PDCA/S and to practice it continuously.

“Who“ does the planning, organizing, con- trolling, and so forth is a key issue. Traditionally it has been only management. Fayol promoted hierarchy as the best way of controlling. Taylor used the scientific method when developing new methods (such as loading pig iron), but he cer- tainly did not XhOGtte its use by anyone but the trained expert.

This division between what management does and what labor does represents one of the big legacies of conventional management theory and practice. In TQM, however, we find every- one in the organization involved in the complete managing cycle of planning, organizing, control- ling, and so on. This does not mean that opera- tors take over the job of the senior executives. What it does mean is that first-level employees are now managing their own part of the organi- zation as much as possible.

Attribute 6. Senior management exhibits dynamic leadership to create an environment that,foster. the abo~~e.~~~e att~~?~,~tes of TQM.

Both Fayol and Barnard were vitally concerned with the role of senior management, which they saw as exercising direction of the entire organiza- tion. More important, they saw the role of the senior executive as critical to the success of the organization. In this sense, both men laid the groundwork for Attribute 6. They held, in effect, that the organization is set on course and kept on course by top managers. The difference in TQM is the end to whic.1~ top executives direct the firm

12

as well as the means used. In TQM, executives focus the entire system on satisfying customers by empowering employees who use PDCA/S to continuously improve the system.

In attempting to implement TQM, many prac- titioners have disregarded Fayol and Barnard’s work. When faced with upper management’s unwillingness to embrace TQM fully, thesca l)r:icti- tioners have gone ahead anyway and put in whatever parts of TQM they could. This makes for an extremely vulnerable position. Unfortu- nately, many have eventually met with upper management reversals of their implementation efforts. For example, the chairman of Florida Power and Light’s parent holding company dis- mantled FP&L’s Deming Prize system, primarily because he refused to support the TQM para- digm.

We have stressed the importance of incorpo- rating the entire TQM paradigm because the six attributes interact synergistically. Their relation- ships are illustrated in Figure 5. This figure is drawn in a somewhat non-traditional manner (with arrows going from right to left as well as bottom to top) to illustrate that it represents a new paradigm. The satisfaction of customers drives the system. The system itself is continu- ously improved by empowered employees. These employees use the philosophy and meth- odology of PDCA/S in pursuing continuous im- provement. Employees, and their use of PDCA/S, are nurtured, promoted, encouraged, and pro- tected by dynamic leadership.

T

he benefits of mastering TQM are sub- stantial. But adopting the paradigm does not automatically make an organization

skilled in it. As with any skill, practice and sup- portive resources determine how proficient a system becomes. Decisions about inducement or contribution arrangements affect the amount of practice and supportive resources. Decisions about the mix of resources to be devoted to pri- mary production, planning and control, coordina- tion, and improvement will also affect the firm’s success.

Here again are Kuhn’s “problems for the redefined group of practitioners to solve.” These decisions are not simple, or easily made. They may be a major reason why not all organizations have adopted TQM. A company that devotes much of its resources to planning and controlling, coordination, and improvement runs the risk of devoting too little to the basic production system, which generates revenues.

We cannot overemphasize the importance of incorporating the entire TQM paradigm. It is bet- ter to manage entirely within the conventional management framework than to adopt some TQM elements, tools, or practices piecemeal. As

TQM: Core Paradigm Changes

L

Figure 5 The Interactions Of The Six Attributes

I Plx;A,,s I

t Using

t

Continuously

t

Improved

c Empowered

I E&loyees , I

4

t Dynamic

Leadership

S

Y

:+pq

E

M

Waddell writes, the transformation from the tradi- tional model to the new model is “an all or none proposition.” 0

References

Davida M. Amsden and Robert T. Amsden, “Plan-Do- Check-Act, And Then Came Quality Circles,” Transac- tions: Sixth Annual Conference And Exhibition (Cincin- nati: Association For Participation And Quality, 1984), pp. 3-5.

“A Report Of The Total Quality Leadership Steering Committee And Working Councils,” Procter & Gamble Company, November 1992.

Joel A. Barker, Future Edge (New York: William Mor- row & Co., Inc.. 1992).

Chester I. Barnard, The Functions Of The Executiue (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938).

California Management Review (special issue on TQM), Vol. 35, No. 3, 1993.

Henri Fayol, General And Industrial Management, trans. C. Storrs (London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, 1969).

A.V. Feigenbaum, Total Quality Control: Engineering And Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961).

Mary Parker Follett, “The Process Of Control,” in L. Gulick and L. Urwick, eds., Papers On The Science Of Administration (New York: Institute of Public Adminis- tration, 1937).

Robert M. Grant, Rami Shani, and R. Krishnan, “TQM’s Challenge To Management Theory And Practice,” Sloan Management Review, Winter 1994, pp. 25-35.

13

T. Ikezawa. Y. Kondo, A. Ham&, and T. Yonrynma,

“Features Of Company-Wide Quality Control In Japan.”

Proccedirgs: Inttwlutional Co@rencr OFZ Qtiali[~~ Coxtrol, Tokyo 19X7, pp. 43-47.

Kaoru Ishikawa. “Company-Wide Quality Control-

Revolution-1Llanagelllent.” ASQC Qt&i[v Congress Trun.sactio?z.s, 198 1.

Introdl*ctiorr ?b Quuli[>j CoFztrol (Tokyo: 3A Corpora-

tion, 1990), pp. 3 I-12; adapted for this article.

J.M. Ivancevich. P. Lorenzi. and SJ. Skinner. mrith P.R.

Crosby, M. I)umler. and J. Kalinowski. hi’UFZUgX”tWFZt:

Qwality And Cornpctitilwwss (Burr Ridge, IL: Richard

D. Irwin, 1994).

Yoshio Kondo, HumaFl Motizutiolz (Tokyo: 3A Corpo-

ration, 1989).

Thomas S. Kuhn, 717e Strrrdure ~fScient(fic Recnlu- tioiw. W. 2, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1970).

Frrcbzrick W. Taylor. 7be Pri~~@les QfScierhfic Muw uggement (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1967).

William H. Waddell, “Overcoming Organizational I Io-

meostasis.” unpublished mamlscript. Aimtech, Inc.,

Hamilton. Ohio, 1992.

J.A. Wqqer, III. “Participation’s Effects On Perfor-

mance And Satisfaction: A Reconsiderdon Of Research

Evidence,” Acadewzy Of Munagwnent Rec%eu: April

1994, pp. 312-330.

D.A. Waldman, “The Contributions Of Total Quality

Management To A Theory Of Work Performance,”

Acud6yy ~fMu?rugement Rezrieru, 10. 3 (1994): 510-

536.

Robcrt Chapman Wood, “A Hero Without A Company,”

Forbes, March 18, 1991. p. 112.

Robert T. Amsden is an associate profes- sor and Thomas W. Ferratt is a professor in the Department of MIS and Decision Sciences at the University of Dayton in Dayton, Ohio. Davida M. Amsden is an author and teacher in the field of total quality management. The authors wish to extend their sincere thanks to those who have read and commented on earlier versions of the article.