Schools of thought in and against total quality. (total quality management)

In 1974, in the third edition of the Quality Control Handbook, Juran (a rationalist) argued that Crosby's perspective was based on spectacular examples in which human error was the cause of a catastrophe and that these examples were not representative of the real problem of poor quality encountered by managers. In his view, this "inattention" school was no more than a flash in the pan, even though he recognized that many company executives could find it quite attractive (Juran, 1974). The unfolding of events, however, would prove him wrong. The 1980s saw the normative school grow in importance with the push toward excellence (Peters and Waterman, 1982), associated with quality and "zero-defect," as well as with the rise of economic liberalism with its emphasis on individual responsibility.

With the rise of the concept of excellence and its pairing with quality management, the 1980s witnessed a distortion of the original TQC concept (in which it is "control," not quality, which is total(2)), which was transformed into TQM (Total Quality Management), then often simply reduced to total quality. It appears to have been by an implicit and gradual consensus that total quality took root, even though precise definitions of the term are rare and divergent (for examples of definitions of total quality, see Dean and Bowen (1994), Ebel (1991), and Kelada (1996)). Many who claim to be talking about total quality trace their authority to Deming and Juran, two of the best known authors in the area of quality management. To our knowledge, however, these authors have never used the expression total quality, even in their recent works. For example, when asked about the future of TQM, Deming replied "there is no such thing. It is a buzzword. I have never used the term, as it carries no meaning" (Romano, 1994: 22).(3)

In summary, the normative school's basic hypothesis is that poor quality can largely be attributed to worker negligence and to companywide carelessness. In this context, the objective is to develop and disseminate a flawless argument to illustrate the role played by the individual in attaining quality (with management setting an example) and to stress economic rationality and the performance obligation facing companies. By means of repeated messages and appropriate incentives, the goal is to allow for the integration and actualization of this normative vision in daily behavior.

THREE CRITICAL STREAMS

TQM is quite recent, and critiques have begun to appear only in the last five years or so. We grouped the critiques into three main streams according to the subject under discussion. Our categorization was based on an extensive but not exhaustive review of the literature. Some believe that the approaches undertaken have not yielded striking improvements and question the ability of TQM to generate the promised results: the pragmatic critique Certain authors have examined the approaches themselves from a conceptual perspective and offer a critique of their content: the theoretical critique There are those who contest the social and political premises underlying TQM and raise questions about its relevance: the ideological critique. The main arguments of each critical stream are shown in Table 2.

The Pragmatic Critique: Does TQM work?

The pragmatic critique (e.g., Schaffer and Thomson, 1992; Harari, 1993a, 1993b) originated from two main groups: quality "specialists" who critique the approaches put forward by their colleagues (and sometimes competitors), and executives and workers who failed at implementing these approaches.

Juran's (1974) critique of Crosby's vision was presented above, yet the opposite argument also exists. For example, rationalists are often accused of proposing an idealist vision which over-emphasizes processes to the detriment of results. As such, some have argued that companies should adopt timely approaches intended to produce short-term results which have a visible impact on company profitability (Schaffer and Thomson, 1992). These kinds of approaches clearly identify causal links between actions and results, thereby contributing to an ongoing learning process based [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED] on past experience. This would be impossible with long-term approaches aimed at improving systems since too many variables influence the results. Rationalist approaches are also criticized for confusing ends and means, allowing managers to hide behind an anticipated long-term performance improvement so as to avoid having to explain difficulties encountered and the absence of tangible results (Schaffer and Thomson, 1992).

Moreover, data concerning alleged TQM failure rates and the description of particular cases have given rise to a new debate: did the companies which experienced failure really adopt a TQM approach? According to some observers, businesses which met with success were those which had adopted a "true" TQM approach, while those who experienced failure had either not adopted TQM or had poorly implemented it (Ahire, 1996; Becker, 1993). In response to this claim, others maintain that the "true" TQM is that which is described as such by managers and not what it is supposed to be in theory (Harari, 1993b).

Pragmatic critiques can also be found in the informal comments made by managers and workers who have unsuccessfully attempted to implement TQM. Criticism sometimes surfaces in the distortion of TQM vocabulary and associated concepts: TQM becomes the "total quality myth" (Bemowski, 1995); QWL - quality of working life - is rendered as "quietly whipping labour" (Landen and Landen, 1990). Other expressions from the total quality discourse have been discredited and forcibly eliminated (Landen and Landen, 1990; Tuckman, 1995). For example, the term quality circles has often been replaced by continuous improvement work-teams or other similar expressions. As consultants and teachers, we often hear disillusioned and cynical remarks concerning the official quality discourse. Although this is only anecdotal evidence, such remarks are so frequently and spontaneously expressed that we feel compelled to include them as informal manifestations of pragmatic critiques. The following examples are drawn from our experience or provided by research and practitioner colleagues(4): "invited suggestions are heeded only when they reflect the desires of management," "management itself is not able to implement its own principles," "quality is only important to the extent that production quotas and delivery deadlines have been met," and "quality is something that is done only between ten and eleven o'clock, Thursday morning." During a training session on statistical process control, we even heard one of the participants say "don't worry, here we make sure that the control charts always say what they are supposed to say." But the type of remark we most often heard is "there was a lot of talk about total quality for a few months, then it just disappeared into thin air...."

The failures of TQM (and the disillusionment of the workforce) are often attributed to a lack of top management commitment, a lack of rigor during implementation (which leads to a failure to develop a quality-oriented culture), or a lack of understanding of the "real" nature of TQM (Ahire, 1996; Becker, 1993). However, contrary to the pragmatic critique, the two following critical streams question the very nature of the proposed change as well as its underlying hypotheses.

The Theoretical Critique: Is TQM scientifically sound?

This critical stream (e.g., Dean and Bowen, 1994; Hill, 1995; Kerfoot and Knights, 1995; Roberts and Corcoran-Nantes, 1995) encompasses a wide variety of works on TQM as an approach to change, the contents of which are examined from a conceptual perspective. Generally speaking, they criticize TQM advocates because of the purely prescriptive nature of the approaches they propose, their lack of nuance with respect to difficulties in the implementation of change, and the absence of any reference to management theory. Some researchers attempt to compensate for the latter failing by establishing links between TQM and current knowledge about organizational management. For example, Dean and Bowen (1994) claim that total quality prescriptions regarding worker leadership, training, and participation could be corroborated by human resources management theory. Furthermore, Spencer (1994) proposes that TQM, generally associated with an organic management model, could in some way be brought closer to the mechanistic model and the cultural model.

While the TQM literature can find a degree of support in management theory, several authors argue that it has important limitation as well. For example, the TQM literature has been criticized for its failure to take into account the presence of different interest groups within the organization, social issues, and the problem of industrial relations (Hill, 1995; Roberts and Corcoran-Nantes, 1995; Wilkinson et al., 1991). According to Hill,

"Resistance to improvement is properly highlighted, but its nature and extent are not understood and the proposed solutions are too restricted.... the mechanisms required to persuade people to "buy into" quality management are limited to leadership from the top, systematic education and training, learning the benefits by doing and recognition for achievements. The thrust of these prescriptions is that top managers should win hearts and minds without compulsion" (1995: 40).

Moreover, Dean and Bowen (1994) consider that total quality places too much emphasis on the formal analysis of information, which is inconsistent with research demonstrating the importance of maintaining a certain degree of informality and ambiguity in organizational contexts characterized by uncertainty and political issues. Dean and Bowen also argue that total quality imposes a strategic formulation that centers exclusively on client expectations, without taking into account considerable literature on strategy that recommends that consideration of an organization's strengths and weaknesses and its competitiveness is just as important as that of the market needs.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates