Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

ISSN: 1478-3363 (Print) 1478-3371 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

The epistemological basis for quality management

Gilles Barouch & Frdric Ponsignon
To cite this article: Gilles Barouch & Frdric Ponsignon (2016) The epistemological basis for
quality management, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27:7-8, 944-962, DOI:
10.1080/14783363.2016.1188659
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1188659

Published online: 29 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 22

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20
Download by: [University of Peshawar]

Date: 09 August 2016, At: 03:40

Total Quality Management, 2016

Vol. 27, No. 8, 944 962, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1188659

The epistemological basis for quality management

Gilles Baroucha and Frederic Ponsignonb

Gilles Barouch Conseil, Issy les Moulineaux, France; bOperations Management, KEDGE
Business School, Talence, France

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

Researchers have observed that Quality Management (QM) is often inconsistently

implemented in practice because of a lack of understanding of the main QM
concepts. This article uses a multi-paradigm analysis involving systemic, pragmatic,
and constructivist perspectives to show that the QM theory can be grounded in an
epistemological framework based on the integration of these three paradigms. We
propose and provide a solid and unifying epistemological basis to help better
understand QM on a theoretical level as well as to facilitate its implementation.
Keywords: epistemology; paradigm; quality management; systems thinking;
constructivism; pragmatism

1.

Introduction

Quality Management (QM) has become a mainstream managerial approach for improving
products, services, and business processes in order to generate superior customer satisfaction and pursue competitive advantage (Dahlgaard-Park, 2015). Its roots can be traced
back to statistical quality control, which was developed by Walter Shewhart in the
United States in the 1930s and popularised by William Edwards Deming and Joseph
Juran in Japan in the 1950s. The principles, tools, and methods of QM were then
brought back to the West during the 1970s where it quickly took hold especially from
the beginning of the 1980s, initially focusing on improving quality of the production
line of manufacturing companies, and then gradually permeated all functions and departments of organisations across manufacturing and service sectors (Dahlgaard-Park, 2011).
There have been critical questions about the lack of theoretical foundations of QM
because the development of the QM field in Western economies lies outside the academic
world (Spencer, 1994, p. 447). The various definitions of QM proposed by its founders and
the great variety of thematic initiatives deployed (the TQM jungle [Moreno-Luzon &
Peris, 1998, p. 338]) seem quite confusing. Scholars who tried to find the roots of QM
in organisation theories concluded that it is theoretically incomplete, ambiguous, or
weakly founded, and QM has been described as an ambiguous organisational phenomenon
(Dean & Bowen, 1994; Giroux & Landry, 1998; Hackman & Wageman, 1995). Spencer
(1994) examined the organisational models underpinning total quality management
(TQM) (mechanistic, organic that is, linked to General System Theory [GST] and cultural) and concluded that TQM is an amorphous philosophy.
However, according to Rungtusanatham, Ogden, and Wu (2003), three major contributions to the theoretical foundations of QM have been proposed based on Demings
(1993) System of Profound Knowledge:

Corresponding author. Email: frederic.ponsignon@kedgebs.com

# 2016 KEDGE Business School. Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

Total Quality Management 945

Deming (1993), Anderson, Rungtusanatham, and Schroeder (1994), and Hillmer and
Karney (1997, 2001). Further, theoretical contributions have strengthened the theoretical
basis of the field (see e.g. Sousa & Voss, 2002). These theoretical developments, however,
have not fully supported the implementation of QM in practice, and Dahlgaard-Park
(2011, p. 497) observed disappointments with the implementation of TQM.
We suggest that implementation problems may be caused, at least partly, by a lack of
understanding of the concepts that comprise QM theory. Indeed it has been observed that
QM is a nebulous concept that is inconsistently executed because it means different
things to different people (Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Zbracki, 1998; cited in Lemak,
Mero, & Reed, 2002). Because QM is an amorphous philosophy, managers tend to
focus on some particular dimensions or practices of QM, according to their specific
needs, but overlook other aspects of the approach (Spencer, 1994). Redman and
Grieves (1999), Giroux and Landry (1998), and Hackman and Wageman (1995)
confirm a gap between QM concepts and their implementation, which may explain QM
failures. Barouch and Kleinhans (2015) conclude that managers lack of understanding
of the foundations of QM is one of the main causes of poor QM implementation.
The main aim and theoretical contribution of this article is to show that QM theory can
be located within three research paradigms that should be coherently integrated to make
QM theory more accessible. Our contribution strengthens the theoretical foundation of
QM by showing that QM theories rely on a robust and coherent epistemological basis.
At the practical level, the articulation of the epistemological foundations of QM intends
to facilitate its implementation.
In sum, the aims of this article are the following:
.

Develop a coherent epistemological basis for QM that links the systemic, pragmatist, and constructivist paradigms. It will be demonstrated that taken together these
three paradigms offer an exhaustive, comprehensive, and coherent understanding of
QM.
Show that this epistemological basis is useful and relevant for managers who are
involved in the implementation of QM.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces a generic

framework for QM comprising six concepts and describes our methodological approach.
Sections 3, 4, and 5 link the key concepts underlying the QM theories to the main tenets of
the systemic, pragmatic, and constructivist paradigms. Section 6 presents and explains two
exceptions to our argument while Section 7 specifies the conditions under which these
paradigms can provide robust epistemological foundations for QM. Section 8 then presents the implications of our analysis for QM practice, and Section 9 concludes the
article by discussing our theoretical contribution, describing the limitations of this work
and by outlining directions for future research.
2. Methodological approach
2.1. A generic conceptual framework for QM
This article introduces a generic conceptual framework for QM in Table 1. The framework
comprises six concepts representing the core components of QM as a field of study (Sousa
& Voss, 2002). The framework results from the synthesis of QM theory developed by
Anderson et al. (1994) and is based on the Deming management method, the generic theoretical model for TQM presented by Dahlgaard-Park (2015), and the main concepts of ISO

946 G. Barouch and F. Ponsignon

Table 1.

A synthesis of theoretical frameworks for QM.

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

Deming-based
theory of QM
(Anderson et al.,
1994)

ISO 9000 requirements

(2015)

Customer
satisfaction

Customer focus
(stakeholder focus)

Visionary
leadership

Leadership

Employee fulfilment

Engagement of people

Process
management
Continuous
improvement

Process approach

External and
internal
cooperation

Managing relationships
with key stakeholders,
such as suppliers and
customers

Improvement

Theoretical model for

TQM (Dahlgaard-Park,
2015)

Generic conceptual
framework for QM
and TQM

Focus on the customers

and the employees
(internal customers)
Strong management
commitment and
leadership
Everybodys
participation focuses
on training, learning,
and education
Focus on facts (processes
and measurements)
Customer-driven
continuous
improvements
Building partnerships
with customers,
suppliers, and society

Customer and
stakeholder focus
Management
commitment and
leadership
Employee
involvementa
Process
management
Continuous
improvement
Partnerships with
customers,
suppliers, and
society

Employee fulfilment is taken into account in the concept of stakeholder focus. Employees are regarded as
stakeholders.

9000 standards (2015), which are widely used by QM practitioners globally. Table 1 introduces these three contributions and shows that they converge towards an overall conceptual framework for QM underpinned by six concepts. These concepts are well established
in the QM literature (Sousa & Voss, 2002) and form the theoretical blocks for describing,
explaining, and predicting the organizational impact of quality management adoption
(Rungtusanatham, Forza, Filippini, & Anderson, 1998, p. 78). In the following sections,
we use the generic term QM to describe both QM and TQM.

2.2.

Adopting a multi-paradigm analysis

Scholars who explore the epistemological foundations of QM tend to rely on one of the
following research paradigms:
a. The systemic paradigm (Anderson, Dooley, & Misterek, 1991; Barouch, 2011a,
2011b; Conti, 2010; Dale et al., 2001; Dooley, Johnson, & Bush, 1995;
Dotchin & Oakland, 1992; Hillmer & Karney, 2001; Manz & Stewart, 1997;
Mulej & Rebernik, 1994; Roth, 2013; Wang, 2004) or
b. The pragmatic paradigm (Blankenship & Petersen, 1999; Cavaleri, 2008;
Cunningham, 1994; Emison, 2004; Lovitt, 1997; Mauleon & Bergman, 2009;
Phelps, Parayitam, & Olson, 2007; Sliwa & Wilcox, 2008).
c. Additionally, the constructivist paradigm has been suggested as a useful approach
that can help to define the concept of quality (Kelemen, 2003; Manjunath, 2008;
Priebe, 2000) but this contention has not been explored further.

Total Quality Management 947

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

Although QM research can be located within any of these three individual paradigms
to provide a specific perspective on QM, we suggest that focusing on a single paradigm in
isolation fails to embrace the entire QM phenomenon. We follow the proponents of paradigmatic pluralism, or multi-paradigm analysis which suggest that paradigms hold a
range of concepts, constructs and practices in common (Hassard & Kelemen, 2002,
p. 345; quoted by Shepherd & Challenger, 2012), and that considering different paradigms
together can facilitate comprehensive theory building (Shepherd & Challenger, 2012,
p. 226). In a multi-paradigm inquiry, each paradigm provides a unique perspective and
reveals a different facet of a phenomenon (Weaver & Gioia, 1994). A multi-paradigm
analysis of QM (Hassard, 1991) is carried out in this article in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the QM phenomenon.
Analogical reasoning

2.3.

Spencer (1994, p. 448) examines three existing organisational models (mechanistic,

organic, and cultural) that provide diverse analogies to explain management of organisations. She then compared the tenets of each paradigm to the TQM concepts in order to
identify their commonalities and establish the theoretical base of TQM. The same
approach is followed here. We closely examine the extant literature in order to explore
the linkages among the six concepts that comprise the generic conceptual framework
for QM previously introduced and the key tenets of the systemic, pragmatic, and constructivist paradigms.
3. Systemic paradigm and QM
In this section, we introduce the main tenets of the systems paradigm and explore the key
concepts of the QM generic theoretical framework (Table 1) from the systemic
perspective.
3.1. Systemic paradigm
The systemic approach or systems theory was born out of cybernetics, which was founded
by Wiener and McCulloch and the GST developed by von Bertalanffy (Mulej & Rebernik,
1994). Cybernetics is defined as the general study of communication and the related study
of control in both machines and in living beings (Wiener, 1950, p. 2); GST deals with the
understanding of the interactive relationships of essential organizational elements over
time (Helzer, 1994, p. 182); and a system may be defined as a set of elements standing
in interrelation among themselves and with the environment (Von Bertalanffy, 1972,
p. 417). To understand a living being, an organisation, a complex situation, or a
problem, it is preferable to consider these systems holistically within the context of
their relationships with their internal milieu and external environment. Related to this definition are several key notions that illustrate the cognitive approach stemming from the systemic paradigm:
.

Interactions: For an understanding, not only the elements but their interactions as
well are required (Von Bertalanffy, 1972, p. 415).
Feedback: Whereas the mechanistic type of linear causality model posits that A
affects B, the feedback model states that A affects B, which then has a feedback
effect on A. The key to systemic understanding is identifying and analysing

948 G. Barouch and F. Ponsignon

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

3.2.

feedback effects. Additionally, the feedback effect helps to control and regulate the
system.
Totality: The systemic approach is based on a global, holistic vision of organisations. In particular, the totality concept means that in living systems the whole
emerges from the complexity of an organism and is greater than the sum of its
parts.
Homeostasis: This concept refers to the systems ability to maintain functional
balance despite external constraints. GST emphasises that all complex systems
seek to achieve a steady state (Wang, 2004). As such, the systemic approach
focuses not on impacts but on changes of balance.
Open system: A living system adapts to its environment by exchanging information
and energy with it.

Exploring QM concepts from a systemic perspective

QM concepts can be understood through a systems perspective.1 Deming (1986, 1993) recommends a systemic approach to describe, understand, and manage an organisation.
Additionally, as mentioned in the methodology section, several scholars proposed the
linkage between QM and a systemic approach, suggesting a close relationship between
QM theory and the systems paradigm.

3.2.1.

Customer and stakeholder focus

This concept is deeply rooted in the organic model and refers to the notion of an open
system, which communicates with its environment (Manz & Stewart, 1997). This in
turn enables the organisation to adapt to changing conditions in its environment (Manz
& Stewart, 1997, p. 61; Spencer, 1994, p. 456). Customer and other stakeholder needs
must be balanced over the long run in order to achieve sustainable performance
(Barouch, 2011a, 2011b). This emphasis on long-term survival provides a linkage
between QM and the organic model of GST (Spencer, 1994). Moreover, QMs ultimate
objective to focus on and satisfy stakeholder needs is closely related to the global, holistic
vision that characterises the systemic paradigm.

3.2.2. Management commitment and leadership

The leadership concept stems from Demings systemic vision according to which dysfunctions are caused mainly by poor systems and not individual behaviour. Leadership is the
only part that is able to and is responsible for changing the organisational system (Deming,
1986). Consequently, leaders are encouraged to adopt the systems approach [emphasis
added] and to manage organizations as systems [emphasis added] (Deming, 1993,
p. 30). This approach emphasises the need to recognize and manage the interdependences
[emphasis added] among the components that comprise the organization (Deming, 1993,
p. 65).

3.2.3.

Employee involvement

Personnel involvement also finds its roots in the systemic vision. According to Deming
(1993), the global transformation that is needed can be obtained only through training

Total Quality Management 949

employees and raising their intrinsic motivation and fostering teamwork. Spencer (1994)
confirms that staff empowerment is part of the organic model based on GST.

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

3.2.4.

Process management

Process management is grounded in the systemic approach in several ways. First, it is

based on a view of an organization as a system of interlinked processes [emphasis
added] (Benner & Tushman, 2003, p. 240) and thus involves recognising that an organization is a system made up of different sub-systems [emphasis added], which interrelate
toward a common goal (Prida & Grijalvo, 2008, p. 350). Second, transversal processes are
characteristics of an open system: from an organic perspective, control shifts from vertical hierarchy to horizontal process flow (Spencer, 1994, p. 457). Third, the international
definition of a process as an aggregation of linked activities which transform inputs into
outputs (ISO 9001, 2015, p. XVI) and its representation in the ISO 9001 (2015, p. XI)
standard correspond to the cybernetic model of the black box (input, output, feedback).
Finally, process management requires identifying and managing interfaces among activities within and between processes.
3.2.5.

Continuous improvement

Continuous improvement is made possible by the implementation of mechanisms of negative feedback loops [emphasis added]: The plan stage does in fact represent a planned
change, and the check and act steps form negative feedback loops under which change
success is assessed and new methods are standardized into the existing, equilibrium
system (Dooley et al., 1995, p. 18). It is a cybernetic feedback mechanism the purpose
of which is to regulate the QM system and achieve a state of dynamic homeostasis
(Barouch, 2011b). The QM philosophy of change (continuous improvement, learning)
is also consistent with the concept of open system (Spencer, 1994).
3.2.6.

Partnerships with customers, suppliers, and society

This concept relates to a systems openness, which is a key tenet of GST and involves the
transcendence of internal and external boundaries. According to Deming, the suppliers are
part of the overall system that has to be managed (Deming, 1993, p. 145). Because, according to GST, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, QM cannot be implemented in a
mechanistic way. There is a need to foster internal and external dialogues and cooperation.
To sum up, we have shown that the six concepts that comprise QM theory are rooted in
the systemic paradigm. The systemic approach offers a specific perspective on QM and
underlies QM key concepts. This therefore suggests that the systemic paradigm provides
a solid epistemological foundation for QM.
4. Pragmatism and QM
4.1. Pragmatic paradigm
The US philosophers William James, Charles Peirce, and John Dewey, who are considered
as the founders of the pragmatic school of philosophy, describe truth as a subjective,
person-dependent notion. They highlight the importance of putting truth in perspective
in order make sense of reality. Indeed, according to Rorty (1995), Dewey wanted to
discard the idea that the purpose of knowledge is to reveal a pre-existing reality rather

950 G. Barouch and F. Ponsignon

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

than a search for the kind of understanding that enables people to cope with whatever problems arise. Pragmatic philosophers are the ones who highlight the utility of a theoretical
proposition (Rorty, 1995). Another fundamental trait of pragmatism is the importance
attributed to the experimental method (Lovitt, 1997), which is composed of four stages:
hypothesis (definition of a specific purpose), experimentation, analysis of the data resulting from the experimentation, and learning. Yet according to the pragmatic philosopher
C. I. Lewis, information resulting from experience has no meaning unless it is interpreted
through the prism of a concept, and individuals only wield those concepts that society
offers them based on their own experiences (Lovitt, 1997). Different individuals will
therefore usually have different interpretations of the same circumstances, hence the
need to share useful concepts and use operational definitions to give them meaning
(Lovitt, 1997, p. 101).

4.2.

Exploring QM concepts from a pragmatic perspective

Lewis had a decisive influence on Shewharts and Demings thinking, something they both
recognised (Cavaleri, 2008; Lovitt, 1997). As mentioned in Section 1, several scholars link
QM to pragmatism. It will be shown below that the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle,
which is central to QM, corresponds to the four stages of the pragmatic experimental
method. Accordingly, most of the concepts that comprise QM theory can be linked to
the stages of the experimental method.

4.2.1.

Customer and stakeholder focus

Emison (2004) argues that customer satisfaction and focus can be related to the specific
purpose (e.g. the first step, hypothesis development) of the experimental method:
Dewey indicated that knowledges value relies on its validation by application, which
required a specific purpose, and Customers serve as the source of such purpose for
TQM (Emison, 2004, p. 58). According to pragmatism, this purpose should be useful
and help solve problems. Customer or stakeholder satisfaction also corresponds to the
concept of utility, because adopting a customer focus involves preventing and solving problems encountered by an organisations customers.

4.2.2.

Management commitment and leadership

Establishing a vision, strategy, and quality policy is equivalent to the first stage of the
experimental method (i.e. defining the specific purpose). Deming (1986) insists that the
managements role is to guarantee a constancy of purpose for improvement of products
and services. This constancy enables the experimental validation of the hypotheses.

4.2.3. Employee involvement

Demings approach is similar to that of Lewis: QM should be based on shared operational
definitions (1993). Consequently, QM concepts and tools are shared through training and
improvement groups. According to Wruck and Jensen (1994), one of the two main characteristics of QM is that the scientific method is shared at all levels of the organisation.
Emison introduces the idea that the problem-solving approach used by an improvement
group corresponds to the five steps of Deweys inquiry (2004, p. 58).

Total Quality Management 951

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

4.2.4. Process management

This concept has no obvious correspondence with pragmatism. This exception will be
explained in Section 6.
4.2.5. Continuous improvement
Lovitt (1997), Emison (2004), and Mauleon and Bergman (2009) state that the experimental approach is what underpins Shewharts and Demings PDSA cycle. The first step is
planning, which stems from a hypothesis or concept. The second step is carrying out
the experimentation. The third step is the judgement or the test of the hypothesis: facts
are the practical outcomes of experimentation. The fourth step emphasises the importance
of implementing change based on learning. (Lovitt, 1997, p. 101). This suggests that continuous improvement corresponds to adaptive learning, the fourth step in the experimental
method. According to Emison (2004, p. 58), this principle is directly related to Deweys
philosophy: Dewey believed that advancement of the human condition required a goalbased, adaptive learning enterprise that revealed truth [. . .]. QMs attention to continuous
improvement reflects such a philosophy in action. The third step of the experimental
method is a prescription for fact-based management, which is an essential characteristic
of TQM (Emison, 2004, p. 58).
4.2.6.

Partnerships with customers, suppliers, and society

Cooperation with suppliers, employees, customers, and other stakeholders is also encouraged within the pragmatic paradigm, which emphasises shared concepts and practices.
In sum, it has been shown that all but one key concept of the QM theory is rooted in
pragmatism. Pragmatism provides a unique perspective on QM and underlies the QM key
concepts, suggesting that pragmatism also provides a solid epistemological foundation for
QM.
5.

Constructivism and QM

5.1. Constructivism
The origin of this theory of knowledge goes back to Kant (according to Bateson, 1979) and
it has constantly been deepened since, notably in studies by researchers such as Bateson
(1972, 1979) and Watzlawick (1984). Constructivism (or radical constructivism) starts
by noting the constructed, hence contingent, nature of all observations. More specifically,
constructivism enhances the central role of the instruments of observation and their interactions with the object being observed. Between a thing per se and its representation,
there is always a transformation. For instance, the process for producing an image
implies a transformation that our senses subconsciously undertake. Perception is also
skewed by an individuals preferences, values, plans, or position within an organisation.
In general, anything that disturbs an individuals balance will be eliminated from his or
her field of perception. Thus, obvious things may be hard to see. The reason for this is
that people are self-corrected systems in the presence of disruption and thus eliminate
elements that otherwise would be part of the perception process (Bateson, 1972). In the
end, describing something is tantamount to mapping it. Yet for Bateson, a map is different
from the territory and the world is not the thing it represents (1979, citing Korzybski).
According to Watzlawick (1984), everyone invents his or her own reality with the illusion that it is something absolutely objective that exists externally.

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

952 G. Barouch and F. Ponsignon

5.2. Consequences of the constructivist interpretation
Constructivism also offers practical consequences for human behaviour and tends to highlight the following values: tolerance, responsibility, autonomy, and definition sharing. If
we accept the idea that we will never know the truth, and our vision of the world is
more or less what we are happy with, we thus need to be tolerant (Watzlawick, 1984).
The constructivist vision also implies that we should feel responsible for all of our acts
and also for the realities that we invent, which can become self-fulfilling. This means
we cannot comfortably put blame on others for what happens to us (Watzlawick, 1984).
Belief in the so-called laws of reality is caused, in this perspective, by an epistemic
error. In the constructivist vision, actors maintain a modicum of autonomy and freedom
from the world they invent (Watzlawick, 1984). Finally, realities that are accessible to
humans appear to be essentially conventional because they suit an individual or a group
at a given moment. So, having a rigorous approach to reality is not enough; it also has
to be shared.

5.3. Exploring QM concepts from a constructivist perspective

It will be shown in this section that the practice of QM is highly dependent on the context
and that its implementation requires a joint construction involving management, staff, customers, and other stakeholders. Also constructivism has been suggested by scholars as a
useful approach that can help to define the concept of quality. Consequently, QM is permeated by constructivism tenets.

5.3.1.

Customer and stakeholder focus

First and foremost the concept of quality corresponds to the constructivist philosophy.
Dotchin and Oakland (1992, p. 135), following an explanation given by Garvin (1984,
1988), recall that QM founders gave at least five different definitions of quality: transcendent or innate excellence; product-based or the amount of a desirable attribute which is
present; user-based in the context of fitness for use; manufacturing-based or conformance
to specification; value-based or satisfaction relative to price. According to these authors,
quality may be a universal truth but its actual meaning must also incorporate contextual
elements such as the type and maturity of organisation, functions, and activities to
which it applies. From that perspective, quality is viewed as a context-dependent construct, rather than an objective, neutral notion.
Priebe (2000), Kelemen (2003), and Manjunath (2008) also see quality as a construct,
in which content is negotiated internally and externally based on customer and other stakeholder needs. Manjunath (2008, p. 76), for instance, details stakeholders various quality
definitions in health care as follows: quality of the process, quality of the outcome,
freedom from deficiencies, quality in fact and in perception, quality assessed by the
patient or by the professional. Thus, quality is not inherently good; it is judged as good
by relevant stakeholders (Kelemen, 2003). Priebe (2000, p. 231) reaches the conclusion
that a way out of the dilemma of finding a universal meaning of quality may be provided
by radical constructivism. According to this philosophy, quality can be seen as a construct. Quality is a construct that can be defined in different ways according to stakeholders perceptual judgements. Quality perceptions are dynamic; they evolve in time
as the needs and expectations of stakeholders change.

Total Quality Management 953

To summarise, the apparent confusion created by the various definitions of quality provided by QM founders on the one hand, and stakeholders different perceptions of quality
on the other hand, can be overcome by considering quality as a construct.

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

5.3.2.

Management commitment and leadership

The values of responsibility and commitment are common to this concept and to constructivism. Indeed, leadership emphasises the leaders direct responsibility in elaborating a
QM system, for instance, establishing a long-term vision, the organisms orientations
and finalities, the quality planning, and so on (Anderson et al., 1994; ISO, 9004, 2009,
p. 42). This concept also stresses the importance of the leaders personal commitment.
The leaders behaviour requires a transformation (Deming, 1993, p. 95): the leader
should set an example, coach people, eliminate fears, and create a climate of participation
and trust. (Anderson et al., 1994; Deming, 1993; ISO, 9004, 2009). Thus in QM, the definition of a new reality as far as quality is concerned (vision, policy, strategy, objectives,
etc.) is the leaders direct responsibility. It also implies the need for his or her personal
commitment. These good practices echo the constructivist conception.
5.3.3.

Employee involvement

Constructivism is associated with this QM concept in various aspects. Worker involvement and refusal to put the blame on the worker (Deming, 1993) are connected to the
values of responsibility and tolerance typically associated with constructivism. In the
vision stemming from constructivism, descriptions of reality are conventions that suit individuals and groups; thus a new reality must be shared in order to take roots. This conception is echoed, for instance, by the following ISO 9001 (2015) requirements: quality
policy must be communicated, understood by the personnel, and customer requirements
known throughout the organisation. The new QM knowledge is also shared through training and improvement groups. Personnel participation (empowerment, improvement
teams) also conveys the acknowledgment of the autonomy postulated by constructivist
values. Finally taking into account the employee needs and opinions also corresponds
to the constructivist value of tolerance.
5.3.4.

Process management

This concept has no obvious correspondence with constructivism. This exception will be
explained in Section 6.
5.3.5. Continuous improvement
Constructivism defines itself as an endless search (Watzlawick, 1984). Continuous
improvement is in line with this definition.
5.3.6.

Partnerships with customers, suppliers, and society

Externally, cooperation with suppliers and other stakeholders is also encouraged within a
constructivist framework, emphasising shared concepts and practices. Taking into consideration the needs of suppliers and other stakeholders in the quest for win win solutions
corresponds to the value of tolerance.

954 G. Barouch and F. Ponsignon

Table 2.

Systemic, pragmatic, and constructivist tenets underlying QM theory.

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

QM concepts

Systems tenets

Customer and
stakeholder focus

Organic model Open

system Adaptation to
the environment
Balanced system
Global, holistic vision

Management
commitment and
leadership

Leaders should:

adopt a system
approach
. be involved
because of poor
organisational
systems
. manage a
company as a
system
. manage
Employee involvement
.

Process management

Continuous
improvement

Partnerships with
customers, suppliers,
and society

interdependencies
among
organisational
components

Global transformation
(of the organisation).
Organic model
System of interlinked
(processes) Interfaces
Organic model Open
system Cybernetic
model
Feedback Homeostasis

Open system Totality

Pragmatisms
tenets

Constructivisms tenets

Specific purpose of Quality as

the experimental
method Utility
. a construct
. contingent

Specific purpose of Leaders responsibility

the experimental
and commitment
method Managers
should create a
constant purpose.

Sharing of
concepts

Sharing of concepts
and vision
Responsibility
Autonomy
Tolerance

Key stage in the

experimental
method
Adaptive
learning
Sharing of
concepts and
practice

Endless search

Sharing of concepts
and vision Tolerance

In sum, constructivism offers a unique perspective on QM and is connected to five out

of six QM key concepts. This suggests that constructivism constitutes a third epistemological foundation of QM. A summary of the linkages between QM key concepts and the three
paradigms is presented in Table 2.

6. Process management within the constructivist and pragmatist paradigms

In this section, we suggest how process management can be located in pragmatism and
constructivism. Indeed process management relates to Shewharts ontology of becoming,
hence, his process thinking and the emphasis he puts on variability and statistical science

Total Quality Management 955

(Sliwa & Wilcox, 2008, p. 104). As for constructivism, it is not a realist, positivist paradigm (Avenier, 2010 quoting Von Glasersfeld, 2001); it is agnostic concerning the nature
of reality (the ontology) (Avenier, 2011): [constructivism] refuses to make any pronouncement on the nature of the world (Avenier & Parmentier Cajaiba, 2012, p. 200).
Therefore this paradigm can accommodate Shewharts ontology, which embeds process
management under the condition of reinterpreting it according to the assumptions of constructivism (Avenier, 2011). This also applies to pragmatism, which shares a contingent
vision of reality with constructivism.

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

7.

Integrating the systemic, pragmatic, and constructivist paradigms

Some scholars associate constructivism with pragmatism, and others connect it to the systemic approach to form coherent and heuristic meta-paradigms. Constructivism and pragmatism share a fundamental assumption about the contingent nature of knowledge.
Moreover, constructivism is similar to pragmatism in considering knowledge in terms
of its usefulness: According to that philosophy [radical constructivism] constructs are
maintained, modified or given up not because they are true or false but because they are
more or less useful to those holding them (Priebe, 2000, p. 231). The inclusion of constructivism in Jamess and Deweys pragmatism is proposed by Avenier (2011) in order
to create a foundational managerial paradigm. Hence, the concept of pragmatic constructivism is used by scholars in various disciplines: education (Gordon, 2009); accounting
(Nrreklit, Nrreklit, & Mitchell, 2010); and epistemology (Avenier & Parmentier
Cajaiba, 2012). Constructivism, which is also called second-order cybernetics, is a
branch of systems theory because it includes the observer as a part of the observed
system. Von Bertalanffy supports the view that constructivism is a constituent of
system theory. Focusing on the epistemological dimension of GST, he states that interactions are never directly seen and perceived: they are conceptual constructs (1972,
p. 422). He continues that perception is not a reflection of real things [. . .] and knowledge not a simple approximation to truth or reality. It is an interaction between knower
and known [. . .] (1972, p. 423). Many seminal works have originated from the integration
of the systemic and constructivist paradigms, notably in the field of psychology, communication, and epistemology (Bateson, 1972, 1979; Watzlawick, 1984). Constructivism can
be incorporated into both pragmatic and systemic paradigms. Consequently, constructivism appears to be a pivotal paradigm for QM because it bridges the two other paradigms.
Moreover, the knowledge that has been developed within systemic and pragmatic paradigms can be coherently incorporated into this framework. Indeed considering the ontological agnosticism that characterises constructivism, it can incorporate knowledge that
has been developed and legitimated in other epistemic paradigms, under the condition
that knowledge is reinterpreted according to the assumptions underpinning constructivism
(Avenier, 2011).
In sum, this discussion suggests that these three analysed paradigms can be coherently
associated at a theoretical level. The following section will show that these paradigms are
complementary at an operational level.

8.

Implications for QM practice

In this section, we claim that the integration of the three paradigms facilitates QM understanding and its implementation by managers.

956 G. Barouch and F. Ponsignon

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

8.1. A clearer understanding of QM

The apparent ambiguity surrounding QM has led to misunderstandings and problems
regarding its implementation (Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Lemak et al., 2002). We
suggest that the solid epistemological basis provided here could help managers better
understand and implement QM by providing them with a deep and multidimensional
understanding of its concepts. Additionally, our interpretation dispels the apparent confusion created by the variety of QM methods, which puzzled scholars and managers
(the TQM jungle). Indeed, constructivism, the central QM paradigm as shown, can
explain why methods and tools stemming from various disciplines such as statistics, marketing, psychology, operations management, and so forth can be coherently integrated into
QM.
8.2.

Directions for QM implementation

At an operational level, each paradigm presented here provides specific and complementary answers to the basic what, why, and how managerial questions. A systemic approach
provides managers with a vision of a holistic, open, and homeostatic organisation that
exhibits strong interdependence among its components. Accordingly, an organisation
should be considered and managed as a system rather than as an aggregation of fragmented
functions or elements (Deming, 1993). This helps managers answer the what question.
Pragmatism suggests a specific, useful purpose as the first step of the learning process,
thus providing answers to the why question. Pragmatism also provides the scientificexperimental method for forming hypotheses, validating experimental results, and learning from experience. Constructivism provides values and a modus operandi for implementing goals and plans. Awareness of the limits of knowledge leads to the necessity
of sharing concepts, for instance, training and participation at all levels. Besides, according
to constructivism, managements invented new reality should be supported by leaderships full commitment, thereby answering the how question. These paradigms
provide coherent and complementary answers to three fundamental managerial questions,
providing managers with consistent guidelines that facilitate the usually complex process
of QM implementation.
8.3. Facilitating QM implementation: two illustrations
We use the development of international models for QM and the operating of improvement teams as two examples to illustrate how the integration of systemic, pragmatic,
and constructivist paradigms can facilitate QM implementation.
The synergy between these paradigms has offered a favourable breeding ground for the
kind of creativity that has enabled QM to renew itself, maturing from statistical quality
control to quality assurance, and then to TQM and sustainable performance. Indeed, the
systemic cognitive model embedded in QM and focused on stakeholders helped QM promoters take into account major changes in organisational environments and incorporate
them in their conceptual models. For instance social responsibility was included in the
European foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model in 1988 and sustainable
performance was a part of early TQM conceptualisations and of ISO 9004 (2009). As
for pragmatism, it clearly strengthens the ability of organisations to learn from experience:
for instance, feedback from QM practice all over the world helps in the continuous
improvement of ISO 9000 standards. Finally, constructivism serves as a modus operandi
in building models (e.g. ISO 9000 standards and business excellence models) that result

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

Total Quality Management 957

from the methodical integration of international expertise (e.g. international inquiry on the
new ISO 9000 standard draft and national teams summing up improvement propositions)
and from negotiations conducted between representatives of these organisations
members. The epistemological framework based on the linking the three paradigms has
thus enabled QM to adapt to environmental changes and renew and improve itself since
its creation about eighty years ago.
Furthermore, improvement teams are commonly created in order to solve a problem or
improve a product or process. This practice stems from constructivism, which fosters participation and responsibility at all levels. The team is usually trained in QM tools, which
corresponds to a pragmatic scientific-experimental approach. Finally, establishing and
managing an improvement team is part of an overall strategy for QM, which corresponds
to the systemic vision. Improvement teams usually receive coordination, training, instructions, and goals from their organisation. If one of these cognitive patterns is missing,
improvement projects are at risk of failure. Indeed, conducting improvement projects
without consulting or involving employees often produces inappropriate results or ends
up being rejected by the workforce. Similarly, implementing solutions that are not
based on proven methods and verified facts may be inefficient and counterproductive.
Moreover, workers proposals that do not take into account the organisations needs
and constraints will not be implemented.
8.4.

Ability to predict QM programme failures

One can predict that managers mechanistic, determinist, or objectivist mind-sets will
result in difficulties or failures regarding the implementation of QM. Scholars observed
that incapacity to grasp the main tenets of the systemic approach may have negative
effects (Deming, 1993) and lead to the failure of QM programmes (Conti, 2010; Prida
& Grijalvo, 2008). The insufficient respect of constructivism core values also appears to
be a cause of failure: the lack of management commitment is identified in the literature
as the main cause of QM programmes failure and the lack of autonomy granted to the
staff focuses researcher criticisms in terms of ethics and efficiency (Barouch & Kleinhans,
2015). Demings (1986) conviction, drawn from his failed experience in the United States
in the 1940s, is that the most important prerequisite for QM success is leadership training
in QM: this corresponds to the pragmatist and constructivist requirement for shared
concepts.
In sum, the epistemological framework proposed here provides managers with a deep
and comprehensive understanding of QM and with useful directions to facilitate its
implementation while preventing cognitive pitfalls.
9. Conclusions
9.1. Summary
The integration of the systemic, pragmatic, and constructivist paradigms provides a solid
epistemological foundation for QM theory; indeed, these paradigms are theoretically compatible and complementary. Taken together they offer an exhaustive, comprehensive, and
useful understanding of QM. Each paradigm underlies QM key concepts and integrates
them into its respective cognitive model. Moreover, this pluralist epistemological framework links the six main concepts of QM theory to these three paradigms, which is consistent with the scientific principle of simplicity and parsimony. It enables a coherent view of
QM that incorporates academic works on QM epistemological foundations. Finally,

958 G. Barouch and F. Ponsignon

epistemological clarity helps to dispel the confusion surrounding QM methods, provides
managers with a deep and broad understanding of QM, as well as giving directions for
implementation.

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

9.2.

Contribution to the existing body of knowledge

Anderson et al. (1994) formulated a descriptive theoretical account of QM based on seven

concepts that underlie Demings management philosophy. Hillmer and Karney (1997) proposed fifteen fundamental and complementary axioms and nine theoretical propositions,
which are aligned to Demings management philosophy. They subsequently demonstrated,
theoretically and empirically, that each axiom is solidly founded (Hillmer & Karney,
2001). The epistemological framework described here clarifies QM foundations, provides
a solid theoretical core for this discipline, and links the six main concepts of QM theory to
these three paradigms, which is consistent with the scientific principle of simplicity and
parsimony.
Some researchers sought the roots of QM in knowledge theory and suggested that QM
can be located within either a systemic or a pragmatic paradigm. However, each of these
paradigms provides only a partial view of QM. This article locates QM within three paradigms, which can be coherently integrated to offer a comprehensive understanding of QM.
Furthermore, previous work did not systematically or methodically explore the linkages
between these paradigms and the key concepts of QM theory. In this article, the analysis
supports the contention that the main tenets of systemic and pragmatic paradigms provide
a sound foundation for QM theory. Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, constructivism has not been identified as a foundational QM paradigm. This article shows that constructivism serves as a basis for explaining QM key concepts. It also represents a bridge
between the systemic approach and pragmatism.
9.3.

Implications for future research

The cognitive framework presented here answers Jurans call to break free from traditional
thinking and suggests a universal way of thinking about quality (Dahlgaard, 2015). We
propose an epistemological and managerial alternative to mainstream paradigms grounded
in Newtonian thinking (mechanist, objectivist, and linear-causal determinist), which greatly
encourages reductionism in management thinking and practice (Dooley et al., 1995). The
systemic approach differs significantly from the analytic, mechanistic, linear-causal paradigm of classical science (Von Bertalanffy, 1972, p. 421). Pragmatism and constructivism
distance themselves from the objectivist conception of truth, and constructivism also stands
away from determinist assumption. Future QM research should be located within these paradigms to enable more appropriate theoretical and empirical developments. As QM epistemology breaks up with the positivism that dominates management research, it implies a new
posture for the researcher. Finally, the assumption that managers familiarity with epistemological foundations is a condition for the success of QM programmes should be empirically
explored by studying the relationship between the results of QM implementation and, for
instance, the level of training in QM received by top managers.
9.4.

Limitations

This article has several limitations. First, few academic works were found to support the
claim that constructivism underpins QM key concepts. Yet we constructed some major

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

Total Quality Management 959

analogies that back up this contention. Moreover constructivism is part of the systemic
approach and pragmatism, which both strongly support QM. Second, slightly different
definitions of the three paradigms may be found in the literature. This suggests that our
conclusions may not apply to all conceptualisations of the three paradigms found in the
literature but only to those defined in this article. It would be interesting to examine if
alternative perspectives on these paradigms also account for QM key concepts. Third,
scholars suggest that QM can be located within other paradigms. In particular, Spencer
(1994) identifies mechanistic (Newtonian view of organisations as a machine, Taylorian
organisation); organic (systemic); and cultural bases (organisation as the result of
mutual agreement and shared symbols and meanings) for QM. Our analysis suggests
that the mechanistic and cultural approaches do not qualify as seminal QM paradigms.
It is true that focusing on internal conformance and standardisation in order to eliminate
variations and ensure stability may lead to mechanistic or at least closed system perspectives (Manz & Stewart, 1997; Spencer, 1994). Yet key QM concepts have been fully
explained here through the systemic, pragmatic, and constructivist paradigms without
any reference to the mechanistic paradigm. In fact, TQMs organic-systemic components
build on and subsume mechanistic principles (Spencer, 1994): the mechanistic model may
have some relevance at a practical, lower level, but it does not qualify as a foundational
QM paradigm. As a philosophy, TQM has much in common with the cultural model
(Spencer, 1994) but the latter does not qualify as a QM foundation. Indeed, TQM
values associated with the organisational cultural model outlined by Detert, Schroeder,
and Mauriel (2000) factual information, long-term orientation, lack of motivation
caused by poor systems, continuous improvement, customer-stakeholder focus,
cooperation, and employee involvement are similar to Anderson et al. (1994), ISO
9000 standards, and TQM shared concepts. Therefore, this cultural model underlying
TQM is rooted in the epistemology described in this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Note
1.

The tenets of the systems paradigm that help to understand the concepts of QM theory are
written in italics. The same approach will be used to link QM theory to the pragmatic and constructivist paradigms in the next two sections.

ORCID
Frederic Ponsignon

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0194-5236

References
Anderson, J., Dooley, K., & Misterek, R. (1991). The role of profound knowledge in the continual
improvement of quality. Human Systems Management, 10, 243259.
Anderson, J., Rungtusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R. (1994). A theory of QM underlying the Deming
management method. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 472509.
Avenier, M. J. (2010). Shaping a constructivist view of organizational design science. Organization
Studies, 31(9&10), 1229 1255.
Avenier, M. J. (2011). Les paradigmes epistemologiques constructivistes: Post-modernisme ou pragmatism. Management & Avenir, 43, 372 391.

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

960 G. Barouch and F. Ponsignon

Avenier, M. J., & Parmentier Cajaiba, A. (2012). The dialogical model: Developing academic
knowledge for and from practice. European Management Review, 9, 199212.
Barouch, G. (2011a). Total quality management as a theory of change. Total Quality Management
and Excellence, 39(2), 14 19.
Barouch, G. (2011b). Change management and homeostasy. Gerer et Comprendre, 106(December),
27 36.
Barouch, G., & Kleinhans, S. (2015). Learning from quality management criticisms. International
Journal of Quality and Service Science, 7, 201216.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (read in French).
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity (advances in systems theory, complexity,
and the human sciences). New York, NY: Hampton Press (read in French).
Benner, M., & Tushman, M. (2003). Exploitation, exploration and quality management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238256.
Blankenship, B., & Petersen, P. (1999). Edwards Demings mentor and others who made significant impact on his view during the 1920s and the 1930s. Journal of Management History,
5, 454 467.
Cavaleri, S. A. (2008). Are learning organizations pragmatic? The Learning Organization, 15,
474 485.
Conti, T. (2010). Systems thinking in quality management. The QM Journal, 22, 352 368.
Cunningham, N. (1994). Deming and the vindication of knowledge in the philosophy of C. I. Lewis.
Quality Management Journal, 1, 7 15.
Dahlgaard, J. (2015). Quality trilogy. The SAGE encyclopedia of quality and the service economy.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2011). The quality movement: Where are you going? Total Quality
Management, 22, 493 516.
Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2015). Total quality management. The SAGE encyclopedia of quality and the
service economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dale, B. G., Wu, P. Y., Zairi, M., Williams, A. R. T., & Van Der Wiele, T. (2001). Total quality
management and theory: An exploratory study of contribution. Total Quality Management,
12, 439 449.
Dean, J. W., & Bowen, D. (1994). Management theory and total quality: Improving research and
practice through research development. Academy of Management Review, 19, 392418.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Deming, W. E. (1993). The new economics for industry, government, education. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Detert, J., Schroeder, R., & Mauriel, J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and improvement
initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 850863.
Dooley, K., Johnson, T., & Bush, D. (1995). TQM, chaos, and complexity. Human Systems
Management, 14, 116.
Dotchin, J. A., & Oakland, J. S. (1992). Theories and concepts in total quality management. Total
Quality Management, 3, 133 145.
Emison, G. A. (2004). Pragmatism, adaptation, and total quality management: Philosophy and
science in the service of managing continuous improvement. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 20(2), 56 61.
Garvin, D. (1984). What does product quality really mean. Sloan Management Review, 26, 25 43.
Garvin, D. A. (1988). Managing quality: The strategic and competitive edge. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Giroux, H., & Landry, S. (1998). Schools of thought in and against total quality. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 10, 183 203.
Gordon, M. (2009). Toward a pragmatic discourse of constructivism: Reflections on lessons from
practice. Educational Studies, 45, 3958.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical conceptual and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 309342.
Hassard, J. (1991). Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis: A case study. Organization
Studies, 12(2), 275 299.
Hassard, J., & Kelemen, M. (2002). Production and consumption in organizational knowledge: The
case of the paradigms debate. Organization, 9, 331355.

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

Total Quality Management 961

Helzer, T. A. (1994). Envisioning total quality management through systems thinking. Systems
Research, 11, 177 182.
Hillmer, S., & Karney, D. (1997). Towards understanding the foundations of Demings management
theory. Journal of Quality Management, 6, 371 400.
Hillmer, S., & Karney, D. (2001). In support of the assumptions at the foundation of Demings theory
of management. Journal of Quality Management, 2, 171 189.
ISO 9001. (2015). Quality management systems: Fundamentals and vocabulary. Geneva:
International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 9004. (2009). Managing for the sustained success of an organization: A quality management
approach. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (read in French).
Kelemen, M. (2003). Managing quality. London: Sage Publications.
Lemak, D., Mero, N., & Reed, R. (2002). When quality works: A premature post mortem on TQM.
Journal of Business and Management, 4, 391410.
Lovitt, M. R. (1997). The new pragmatism: Going beyond Shewhart and Deming. Quality Progress,
10, 99 105.
Manjunath, U. (2008). Core issues in defining healthcare quality. The ICFAI University Journal of
Services Marketing, VI, 72 78.
Manz, C., & Stewart, G. (1997). Attaining flexible stability by integrating total quality management
and socio-technical systems theory. Organizational Science, 8, 5970.
Mauleon, C., & Bergman, B. (2009). Exploring the epistemological origins of Shewharts and
Demings theory of quality: Influences from C. I. Lewiss conceptualist pragmatism.
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2, 160171.
Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Peris, F. J. (1998). Strategic approaches, organizational design and quality
management: Integration in a fit and contingency model. International Journal of Quality
Science, 3, 328 347.
Mulej, M., & Rebernik, M. (1994). There is hardly a (total) quality without systems thinking.
Systems Research, 11, 714.
Nrreklit, H., Nrreklit, L., & Mitchell, F. (2010). Towards a paradigmatic foundation for accounting practice. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23, 733758.
Phelps, L., Parayitam, S., & Olson, B. (2007). Edwards Deming, Mary P. Follett and Frederick
Taylor: Reconciliation of differences in organizational and strategic leadership. Academy of
Strategic Management Journal, 6, 114.
Prida, B., & Grijalvo, M. (2008). The socio-technical approach to work organization: An essential
element in quality management systems. Total Quality Management, 19, 343352.
Priebe, S. (2000). Ensuring and improving quality in community mental health care. International
Review of Psychiatry, 12, 226 232.
Redman, T., & Grieves, J. (1999). Managing strategic change through QM: Learning from failure.
New Technology, Work and Employment, 14(1), 45 61.
Rorty, R. (1995). Lespoir au lieu du savoir: Introduction au pragmatisme. Paris: Albin Michel.
Roth, W. (2013). Six sigma: Just more of the same? Performance Improvement, 52, 25 30.
Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., Filippini, R., & Anderson, J. C. (1998). A replication study of a
theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method: Insights from
an Italian context. Journal of Operations Management, 17(1), 7795.
Rungtusanatham, M., Ogden, J. A., & Wu, B. (2003). Advancing theory development in total quality
management: A Deming management method perspective. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 23, 918936.
Shepherd, C., & Challenger, R. (2012). Revisiting paradigms in management research: A rhetorical analysis of the paradigm wars. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15,
225 244.
Sliwa, M., & Wilcox, M. (2008). Philosophical thought and the origins of quality management:
Uncovering conceptual underpinnings of W. A. Shewharts ideas on quality. Culture &
Organization, 14, 97106.
Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2002). Quality management revisited: A reflective review and agenda for
future research. Journal of Operations Management, 20, 91109.
Spencer, B. (1994). Models of organization and total quality management: A comparison and a critical evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 9, 446471.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of General System Theory. Academy of
Management Journal, 15, 407 426.

962 G. Barouch and F. Ponsignon

Downloaded by [University of Peshawar] at 03:40 09 August 2016

Von Glasersfeld, E. (2001). The radical constructivist view of science. Foundations of Science:
Special Issue on Impact of Radical Constructivism on Science, 6(13), 31 43.
Wang T.-W. (2004). From General System Theory to total quality management. The Journal of
American Academy of Business, March, 394 400.
Watzlawick, P. (Ed.). (1984). The invented reality: How do we know what we believe we know?.
New York, NY: Norton.
Weaver, G. R., & Gioia, D. A. (1994). Paradigms lost: Incommensurability vs. structurationist
inquiry. Organization Studies, 15(4), 565 589.
Wiener, N. (1950). Cybernetics. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 3, 24.
Wruck, K. H., & Jensen, M. C. (1994). Science, specific knowledge, and total quality management.
Journal of Accounting and Economics, 18, 247287.
Zbracki, P. M. L. (1998). The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 43, 602 636.