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

It is possible that the existence of several definitions could be advantageous if the concept can be adapted to the particular situations of those using it (Garvin, 1984; Reeves and Bednar, 1994). However, when talking about quality, it is necessary to take the time to define one's terms precisely before beginning an in-depth discussion. Moreover, divergences must be acknowledged. Finally, even though some may contend that this change in the vocabulary is the result of natural evolution (for instance, replacing "control" with "management" because of the former's negative connotation and subsequently eliminating "management" to avoid the impression that TQM was a program limited to management), we believe that the new wording is indicative of a more fundamental conceptual shift.

Another paradox emerges from the juxtaposition of rational and normative schools of thought. Rhetoric from the rational school purports that TQM is founded on the desire for scientific rigor (management by facts) and relies heavily on formal systems and technical tools. Rhetoric from the normative school purports that its very justification and the context in which it is implemented is the struggle for survival waged by organizations in a global market, but in this case TQM is articulated by a moral, religious vocabulary(5) (Steingard and Fitzgibbons, 1995; Webb, 1995). The "quality crusader" must "have faith," but its actions must be based on objective facts.

More importantly, the discourse surrounding quality has shifted considerably over the years (for examples, see Table 3). The concept of quality management has been broadened to such an extent that it is now a synonym for "sound management" (Table 3, Column 1). The economic argument evolved from a rhetoric of reducing costs as a means of justifying improvements in product quality to a rhetoric of improving quality in order to justify reducing costs (Column 2). The discourse shifted from the need for everyone w be involved in the improvement of product quality to everyone becoming a "quality person" (Column 3). To better understand these shifts and their interrelations, we present an historical perspective and contextualize the prescriptions of those currently referred to as quality "gurus."

Originally, quality management had nothing to do with a search for "total quality." Rather, it was a more prosaic response to the need to offer products and services, the characteristics and attributes of which corresponded to what customers had been promised. This was the underlying principle for Shewhart, Deming, Juran, and Feigenbaum, who considered deficiencies in management systems as merely a hindrance to product quality, and company-wide quality as only a means to improving product quality. In Feingenbaum's TQC, "control" is total, not quality.(6) TQC's objective is to secure the participation of all company functions in improving the quality of products and services offered to customers. Indeed, the Japanese ideograms for the TQC concept literally signify "quality together" (Aubert and de Gaulejac, 1991). With Deming, the tendency is to retain only his 14 points, which [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 3 OMITTED] when taken out of context, appear as prescriptions for sound management. However, the idea behind the development of these management concepts was the improvement of product quality. If "drive out fear" (point 8) or "eliminate numerical quotas" (point 11) were deemed necessary, it was because fear led employees to camouflage defects and because production quotas emphasized production quantity to the detriment of quality.

In the early work on quality management, cost reduction was the argument used by specialists in this field to convince managers to adopt the tools and methods they were proposing. In effect, managers at the time thought improving product quality would entail high costs, and it was necessary to convince them that the costs of poor quality were greater than the required investments. The objective of Deming, Juran, and other pioneers of quality management was the improvement of product quality. The possibility of reducing production costs by reducing rejects and reworking due to poor quality was an incentive, a happy consequence, or almost a bonus that occurred in concert with improvement of quality.

In the 1980s, however, TQM became a "product" to be sold, borne by the popularity of the concepts of competitiveness and excellence. In order for TQM to be even more attractive to the company heads for whom it was intended, market share and profitability were emphasized. The concept of quality was thus broadened to "to do a quality job," which was associated not only with the reduction of error, but also with the efficiency of work methods and the reduction of waste due to bureaucracy. All company services had to improve the quality of their work not only for production personnel to turn out better products, but (first and foremost) to improve the entire company's productivity and competitiveness. As such, TQM became the symbol of sound management, as illustrated by the following: "total quality is simply, and somewhat astonishingly, not really about quality at all! . . . [It's about improved organizational Performance]" (Schaffer, 1993: 19). Far from being superficial, this redefinition of the concept of quality constitutes a complete reversal of the situation. Initially, advocates of quality management employed a rhetoric of cost reduction to persuade business leaders to invest financial resources in quality management. Now, business leaders (often led by consultants) employ a rhetoric of quality to enlist employees and executives in a program of change. The primary objective of the program is to improve the company's competitive position, not only with respect to its customers, but to its shareholders as well. One can observe a transition from the management of quality to the quality of management (Brocka and Brocka, 1992, Feigenbaum, 1997), and, finally, to management by quality.

These shifts in the discourse surrounding quality have important consequences. First, they permit a better understanding of the ideological critique. This critique accuses TQM of using a virtuous discourse of improving quality to exploit workers for the benefit of capital (even though it is understood that this is more a question of following passing fads and the manifestation of management's desire for miraculous solutions than the result of a Machiavellian maneuver). Second, if TQM is the equivalent of sound management, then it reduces good management to a set of prescriptions. Hence, the theoretical critique is even more justified in reproaching the TQM discourse for not grounding itself in management research and neglecting the social dimension. This also makes TQM an incredibly ambitious project - all the more so, given that the emphasis is on the word "total." This might explain the low success rate of the TQM projects surveyed by the pragmatic critique.

Above all, we believe that these shifts are a hindrance to quality management. By disguising the elimination of waste as efforts to improve quality, quality management is tainted by deceptive maneuvers for which it is not responsible. TQM is thus vulnerable to being discredited. One might wonder whether in trying to achieve "total" quality, "plain" quality is neglected. "Plain" quality refers to the simple quality of the product or service which corresponds to the legitimate expectations of the purchaser and should fulfill the producer's promises. In effect, the TQM concept is now charged with so many different meanings that the place of quality in itself is being increasingly reduced. For example, in a recent trade show on the implementation of quality at which representatives of various companies gave the results of their quality improvement programs, a good proportion of exhibitors showed what were in fact programs for the elimination of waste (reduction of set-up time, optimization of a production line, reduction of material loss in pattern cut-outs, etc.). Our intention is not to minimize these efforts, but to point out that, while quality management and efficiency management are both important and can often overlap and help one another, they nonetheless remain two distinct elements of organizational management.

We believe that talking in terms of simple quality has the advantage of taking us back to the very concrete and, ultimately, relatively humble origin of quality management. Such an approach might not appear very ambitious to advocates of excellence, but we think that the simple quality of products and services already is in itself a very important objective and that the means to attaining it are very complex. To speak in terms of simple quality is also to reframe quality management within organizational constraints and environmental contingencies and to remove it from the hands of an evangelical and universalist discourse which leaves little room for discussion and real participation. We should add, however, that we are not suggesting that simple quality is "purer" than total quality, nor that it is free of all value or ideology. Its ideological charge is no greater than that of any other dimension of management in a market economy and capitalist society. To speak in terms of simple quality would not in our view constitute a step back or a rejection of efficiency, but rather a re,emphasis of the hard reality of the arbitration sometimes needed between opposed interests and objectives.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

In this article, we have demonstrated that the field of quality management is not always as homogenous and unified as some are led to believe. On the contrary, it is comprised of distinct schools of thought. Our classification is a preliminary proposal which could (and should) be supplemented by further scientific analysis. We believe that although classifications are always imperfect and subjective, they provide managers with useful criteria to characterize and comprehend the many quality management programs available.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates