TQM: Core Paradigm Changes

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

otal Quality
Management
continues to
be 3 much-debated
approach to managing organizations.
At
the core of this debate lies 3 serious
failure on the part of
many to recognize
that TQM is different
in essence from
m:magement
in 130th

classical and conventional

theory and practice.
Unfortunately.
many business

people
and
academicians
regard the development
and practice of TQM as an evolutionary
process rathe

than a revolutionary
one. &cause they view it
from within the conventional
management
paradigm. 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#anization 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
doesnt 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

work in the area of paradigms in the
context of science.
It is especially
important for those of us in business to study Kuhns
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

practitioners, 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 311sorts 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 practiceexamples \vhich include law, theory,
application.
and instrumentatioti
together-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 unwritten) 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 sucessful. 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 management that 3 departure
from it would be virtually
unthinkable.

TQM has definitely attracted an enthusiastic

group of dierents
away from competing
management

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 proprietary information with suppliers. If we follow
Barkers definition, we find in TQM a body of
principles, a set of rules and regulations establishing boundaries and describing how one
should work in order to be successful. From this
perspective, TQM does represent a new paradigm.

Evidence Of A Paradigm Change: Japan

Corroborative
evidence for a paradigm shift in
management
is easier to see if we study a significant 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 distinguish their management
practices from Total
Quality Control, A.V. Feigenbaums
phrase. The
Japanese clearly recognized that CWQC differed
significantly from what Feigenbaum
had proposed.
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 different 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 practiced 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 produceroriented QC.
3. The next process is the consumer.
4. Talk with facts and data: application of
statistical methods.
5. Management that respects humanity: industrial democracy.
6. Functional management.
All of these characteristics
and underlying philosophies 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: CoreParadigm

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 requirement of quarterly reports makes the managers more short-sighted. Top managers, he
said, must be evaluated over the long term instead. For example, he maintained, if the president, manager, or factory manager is not evaluated 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 management to TQM implies a radical change for Western 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 311departments and all employees

1. QC activities: All departments and all

employees led hy top management.

2. Enthusiasm for QC
education and training.

2. Widespread
acceptance of the quality
first principle in management.

3. QC circle activities.

3. Policy deployment
by policy.

4. QC audits: The Deming

Application Prize and
company presidents audits.
5.

IJse

of statistical methods:
The Seven QC Tools as
well as advanced methods.

6. National QC promotion
campaigns.

and management

4. The QC audit.
5. Quality assurance from planning and
development
to sales and sewice.
6. QC circle activities.
7. QC education

and training.

8. Development
methods.

and application

of QC

9. The extension of QC from manufacturing to other industries.

10. National QC promotion

campaigns.

In the United States, several firms appear to

have moved solidly into TQM. Motorola, one of
the very first to win the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, pursues six-sigma, a quality term that describes the firms internal strategy
for meeting the goal of customer satisfaction.
Ford Motor Company has granted its Ql certification/award to a coal mining company. Was the
reason for this maximization of shareholder
value? We think not. Rather, it was Fords desire
to satisfy customers through a holistic system.
one that goes as far back through the supply
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,
the role of the supervisor or manager with respect to subordinates
has changed from tradtional director to coach. Harley-Davidson
is yet
another example of a company famous for its
quality initiatives.
A. number of authors have contrasted TQM
with the current management
model, showing
how the latter misses vital points of TQM. One of
these authors, W.H. Waddell (1992), describes the
current. conventional
management
model as
having been developed by Alfred Sloan for Genem1 Motors early in this century.
The model, he points out, manages by the numbers because
every relevant aspect of the operation 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 conventional 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
the conventional
m&gement
model f1ow.s out
of one primary objective, maximizing shareholder
wealth. whereas in TQM the primary objective is
providing customer satisfacti&.
For our part, we claim that continuous
improvement is a key element of TQM and not so
in conventional
management.
This claim is baSed
not only on many years of interacting with practicing managers, reading and teaching from textbooks, 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 (empowerment ) lead to continuous impro\,ement? The
literature is dominated instead by the conventional goals of effectiveness
and efficiency, producti\-ity and performance.
Ivancevich et al.
(1994) note that goals can be stated in terms of
production, efficiency, and satisfaction: continu-

ously improving these goals is not a pervasive

value in their discussion. In his review of the
effects of participation, Wagner (1994) focuses on
the goals of performance
and satisfaction, saying,
In most research on participation,
performance
is defined in terms of individual-level
production
quantities and measured by self-reports, supervisors ratings, or output counts. Conspicuous
by
its absence is continuous improvement
as an
underlying value or goal.
A recent issue of the Academy of Management Review devoted to an examination of TQM
underscores
the absence of TQM concepts in
conventional
management,
especially continuous
improvement.
D.A. Waldman (1994) specifically
challenges readers: When conceptualizing
the
determinants
of work performance,
it may be
especially beneficial to include concepts and
ideas being put forth by TQM proponents
such
as Deming and Juran. Among the ideas to inelude, he contends, is continuous improvementa key concept in the propositions
he develops.
Only very recently has such research even begun
to consider this crucial TQM concept.

TQM: Evolution Or Revolution

In The United States?
Scientists, writes Kuhn, have difficulty recognizing a paradigm shift. They are likely to view science as an evolutionary process and thus fail to
see past changes from one paradigm to another.
There are two reasons for this. Histories of science are written backward by people who look
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 interpretation. Second. most of the scientists, as well as
the writers of science history, have never personally experienced
a major paradigm shift in science. If they do, very likely they are quick to
dismiss it as ;I time of great frustration and do not
recognize it for what it is.
Kuhns observations
about scientists strikingly
parallel Western managers. When business researchers discuss TQM, they generally consider it
an addition to, or an e\rolution of, traditional
Western management
theory and practice. Although 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
management, you must be willing to suspend your
current way of thinking. You must step outside
your paradigm.

CONTENT OF THE PARADIGM SHIFT

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 characteristics 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 external customer needs.
3. They manage the system holistically so as
to continuously improve the satisfaction of internal 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 methodology 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 concept The necessity of considering an organization as a complete system originated with systems theory and has been applied to managing
organizations. Empowerment of individuals has
been a basic tenet in the human relations movement 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 customer to include the next person in the internal
TQM: Core Paradigm

Changes

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 satisfaction.
When we look at the work of classical theorists 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 prosperity for each employee
. [which is1 the result of
the greatest possible productivity of men and machines of the establishment. One wonders what
Taylors work would have
looked like had he emphasized customer satisfaction 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 principles that are required for a business to show a
profit. Satisfying the customer, which was peripheral 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 inducements or contributions. He was interested in
establishing an organization and its system aspects. Customer satisfaction was not a major consideration. 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 external 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 system is broader than in conventional management.
System now extends from supplier through customer, from design through product disposal.

Among the classical writers wt find no emphasis 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. Barnards
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 TQQIMin~~~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 developed, 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-t2need to discuss this topic in
more detail. As \ve ha\~ said, continuous
inprovemc>nt is :I per\~;lsi\~e. underlying
value or
goal of TQM. but not of conventional
management. By definition,
people in organizations
iml-tueti with TQM ~~~~1tinLlously seek to improve
processes and achieve higher levels of efftctivencss. efficiency, and adaptability.
Those in companies governed by conventional
management.
however. do not necessarily seek such improve111ent.

Organizational
designs and practices are
established
to achieve a firms 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 characterize organizations
with conventional
management as seeking static ttquilibrium.
TQM organizations, on the other hand, seek dynamic equilibCum.
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 firms
activities remain the same, and no changes are
planned (see Figure 2). In some activities, however, 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 performtrnce measures rather than the whole system.

Figure 2
Static Equilibrium: Part 1

_----------.

Targtt

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 organizational system involves assessing the competitive
market environment,
setting target levels of performance for some planning horizon, and attempting to meet those targets. Within this horizon, 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 targets rarely change within the planning horizon;
they may change between horizons, though not
necessarily. As conventional
wisdom has it, If it
aint broke, dont fix it. Any changes concentrate
on maintaining
effectiveness
and efficiency.
Dynamic equilibrium is fundamentally
different. 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, previous 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 resolve. (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 everything with which they are associated, so the improvements they do make will generally be small
and incremental, which are relatively easy to
manage. Variations in the process can be continually 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 primarily because they effect customer satisfaction.)
Occasionally,
though, a firm needs to implement 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 innovative changes are the exception in TQM, not the
rule. This raises questions regarding business

TQM: Core Paradigm Changes

process reengineering,
which appears rather to
patch problems in the old
paradigm by means of a
one-time Big Fix. In other
words, why would one want
or need to reengineer a
process if one had been
making continuous improvement to it all along?

Attribute

Figure 4
Dynamic Equilibrium

4. Empowerpeople.
(.WIuq~processe.5

As stated earlier, this attribute has been a tenet in

the human relations movement for some time. Implicit
in Attribute 3 is the concept
that everyone in the system
is involved in continuously
improving it. All individuals
within the system, whether an accounts receivable 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 responsibility 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 lacking. This is evident in his description of the selection 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, between head and members of the body corporate. This suggests that everyone in the organization, 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 maintained in classical management.
Barnard pointed to a powerful tension between two forces, believing that the expansion
of cooperation
and the development
of the individual 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 freedoms, as is required by joining an organization.
The second, development
of the individual,
means exercising personal freedom. TQM pro-

improuementl

Time

11

vides a better balance between the two. How it

does this is one of those problems Kuhn predicted 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 common planning and control elements in a nontraditional manner. It requires that all members of
the system constantly apply a learning methodology to every business activity. Because TQM
differs so radically from conventional
management 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 equilibrium. changing something is viewed as an experiment, 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 experiment 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 substantiated, the Standardize step implements
those techniques, procedures,
or practices designed to
maintain the Do step so that it can he repeated
and improvement
can build on current accomplishments.
(Standardize
is the same as &rans
control function.)
l After both
Act and Standardize,
the PDCAiS
cycle repeats.
Thus, any business decision-to
change tooling, to implement
a new technology,
to continue
using the same design for a product or processis an experiment.
The point is that in TQM, everything one does is to be viewed as the outcome of a theory. So people must analyze their
activities and decisions to see whether their theories actually have been substantiated
when implemented. TQM requires management
by fact: that
is. management
decisions must be leased on data,
12

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 activities.
Practitioners
of TQM stress the importance
of
everyone in the system carefully following the
steps outlined in the dynamic equilibrium
process. 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 theoretically part of a traditional managers responsibility, 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,
controlling, 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 certainly 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 everyone in the organization
involved in the complete
managing cycle of planning,
organizing,
controlling, and so on. This does not mean that operators 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 organization 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 organization. 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

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 practitioners have disregarded Fayol and Barnards
work. When faced with upper managements
unwillingness to embrace TQM fully, thesca l)r:ictitioners have gone ahead anyway and put in
whatever parts of TQM they could. This makes
for an extremely vulnerable position. Unfortunately, many have eventually met with upper
management reversals of their implementation
efforts. For example, the chairman of Florida
Power and Lights parent holding company dismantled FP&Ls Deming Prize system, primarily
because he refused to support the TQM paradigm.
We have stressed the importance of incorporating the entire TQM paradigm because the six
attributes interact synergistically. Their relationships 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 continuously improved by empowered employees.
These employees use the philosophy and methodology of PDCA/S in pursuing continuous improvement. Employees, and their use of PDCA/S,
are nurtured, promoted, encouraged, and protected by dynamic leadership.
he benefits of mastering TQM are substantial. But adopting the paradigm does
T
not automatically make an organization
skilled in it. As with any skill, practice and supportive 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 primary production, planning and control, coordination, and improvement will also affect the firms
success.
Here again are Kuhns 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 better to manage entirely within the conventional
management
framework than to adopt some
TQM elements, tools, or practices piecemeal. As
TQM: Core Paradigm

Changes

Figure 5

The Interactions Of The Six Attributes

Plx;A,,s

t
t

I,

Continuously
Improved

Using

:+pq

t
Empowered
E&loyees

t
Dynamic
Leadership
L

Waddell writes, the transformation

from the traditional model to the new model is an all or none
proposition. 0

References
Davida M. Amsden and Robert T. Amsden, Plan-DoCheck-Act, And Then Came Quality Circles, Transactions: Sixth Annual Conference And Exhibition (Cincinnati: 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 Morrow & Co., Inc.. 1992).
Chester I. Barnard, The Functions Of The Executiue
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938).
California

Management

Review (special

TQM), Vol. 35, No. 3, 1993.

issue on

Henri Fayol, General And Industrial Management,

trans. C. Storrs (London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, 1969).
A.V. Feigenbaum,
And Management

Total Quality Control: Engineering

(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
tration, 1937).

(New York: Institute

of Public

Adminis-

Robert M. Grant, Rami Shani, and R. Krishnan, TQMs

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
Coxtrol, Tokyo 19X7, pp. 43-47.
Kaoru Ishikawa.
Company-Wide
Quality
Revolution-1Llanagelllent.
ASQC Qt&i[v
Trun.sactio?z.s, 198 1.

Introdl*ctiorr
tion,

1990),

OFZQtiali[~~

J.A. Wqqer,
III. Participations
Effects On Performance And Satisfaction:
A Reconsiderdon
Of Research
Evidence,
Acadewzy Of Munagwnent Rec%eu: April
1994,

Control-

Congress

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): 510536.

?b Quuli[>j CoFztrol (Tokyo:

pp.

3 I-12;

adapted

3A Corporafor this article.

Robcrt

Chapman

Forbes, March

Wood,
18, 1991.

A Hero
p. 112.

Without

A Company,

J.M. Ivancevich.
P. Lorenzi.
and SJ. Skinner.
mrith P.R.
Crosby,
M. I)umler.
and J. Kalinowski.
hiUFZUgXtWFZt:
Qwality And Cornpctitilwwss (Burr Ridge, IL: Richard
D. Irwin, 1994).
Yoshio
ration,

Kondo,
1989).

HumaFl Motizutiolz

(Tokyo:

3A Corpo-

S. Kuhn,
717e Strrrdure ~fScient(fic
Recnlutioiw. W. 2, 2nd ed. (Chicago:
University
of Chicago

Thomas
Press,

1970).
7be Pri~~@les

QfScierhfic

uggement (New York: W.W. Norton

& Company,

1967).

William H. Waddell,
Overcoming
Organizational
meostasis.
unpublished
mamlscript.
Aimtech,
Hamilton.
Ohio, 1992.

I IoInc.,

Frrcbzrick

W. Taylor.

Muw

Robert T. Amsden is an associate professor 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.