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

We also believe that the labels "rational" and "normative," as borrowed from Barley and Kunda (1992), may be useful in several respects. They call attention to the possibility of internal contradictions in cases where the program in question proposes an orientation that seems to be both rational and normative. In addition, they evoke the fact that different quality management approaches may be based on quite different assumptions about the nature of human actors and their attitude toward work. Therefore, before selecting a particular program, it might be worthwhile to consider whether or not the assumptions on which the program is based correspond to one's own beliefs and to the organizational reality. Finally, these concepts remind us that quality management is also a form of control, anchored in rhetoric, and is not free of ideological content. As such, quality management cannot be idealized as being above other organizational contingencies, conflicting interests, and political struggles. We believe that these aspects of our classification may help managers. recognize the pitfalls they may encounter when they implement quality management approaches.

The framework can be a valuable tool and foster further research in the area. For example, Barley and Kunda (1992) identify several orientations (tenors) that prevailed within the successive normative and rational waves. Similarly, it might be possible to identify subgroups within the two schools that would display some distinct characteristics. Moreover, the proposed framework could help researchers and managers examine quality management or TQM implementations' successes and failures in terms of the chosen approach, whether rational or normative, thus avoiding sterile debate about "true" TQM approaches. Does one approach guarantee better chances of success or is it preferable to refer to best-fit approaches? That is, depending on some organizational characteristics (type of structure, leadership style, size, etc.), one approach could potentially increase the chances of success.

We are convinced that the discourse surrounding quality has shifted considerably over the years. Moreover, we have provided evidence that substantiates the existence of such "shifts." However, much work remains to be done. For instance, argument analysis or other forms of content analysis could strengthen the evidence in favor of our proposition. With the theoretical analysis presented here, we sought to show how the evolution of the discourse surrounding quality allows for a better understanding of some of the criticism levelled at it. We hope that this fosters a climate of exchange for proponents and opponents of TQM. We firmly believe that it is not by rejecting criticism or by responding with truisms and equivocation that the cause of quality will be advanced. We believe that criticism should be encouraged, analyzed and classified to better organize ongoing discourse.

Our intention was to highlight the risks inherent in diluting the concept of quality within a discourse that is both too encompassing in its grasp and overly reductive in its applications. We wanted to reduce the frustration that managers and employees have when confronted by TQM so as to reduce the chances that they will dismiss it as yet another management fad. On the one hand, we believe that what happened to the discourse surrounding quality management may reflect a more general process: the discursive creation of a "miracle cure." If this is the case, managers should watch for the warning signs of this phenomenon when they try to select a new management approach. On the other hand, a better understanding of the historical reasons and of the discursive processes which have led to the misappropriation of the concept of quality may prevent managers from becoming discouraged by the failures of so many TQM programs.

* The authors wish to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments, and the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales de Montreal and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for their financial support.

1 For example, "Drive out fear" (point no. 8), "End the practice of awarding business on price tag alone" (point no. 4), "Eliminate numerical quotas" (point no. 11), and "Remove barriers to pride of workmanship" (point no. 12) (Walton, 1986). It should be noted that while Deming's method has become the cornerstone of many quality management approaches, it did not always consist of 14 points. Several were added specifically for the North American setting when Deming returned to the United States after his stay in Japan.

2 In his first article presenting the TQC concept, Feigenbaum speaks of a total/quality view, but this expression has nothing to do with what is now called "total quality." A close reading also reveals that it is indeed control, not quality, that is total (Feigenbaum, 1956).

3 However, it should be noted that Feigenbaum himself (author of Total Quality Control) has spoken in terms of total quality over the past few years. He is one of the only representatives of the rational school to do so.

4 For obvious reasons, sources cannot be cited. These comments were made by workers, technicians, clerical staff and middle managers of numerous companies engaged in TQM.

5 For example: "The implied managerial identity is that of a messiah, with talk of the "crusade for quality": "the pursuit of the goal of perfection in TQ has a monkish ring to it. The . . . conversion to TQ . . . is both personal and public.... There is also an element of personal witness" (Bank, 1992: 47). "No doubt vows of poverty and chastity will follow shortly!" (Webb, 1995: 108).

6 In 1961, Feigenbaum also wrote: "In the phrase 'quality control,' the word quality does not have the popular meaning of 'best' in any absolute sense. It means 'best for certain customer conditions'" (Feigenbaum, 1961:1)

References

Ahire, S.L. 1996. "TQM Age Versus Quality. An Empirical Investigation." Production and Inventory Management Journal (first quarter):. 18-23.

Aubert, N. and V. de Gaulejac. 1991. Le cout de l'excellence. Paris: Seuil.

Bank, J. 1992. The Essence of Total Quality Management Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International (UK).

Barley, S.R. and G. Kunda. 1992. "Design and Devotion: Surges of Rational and Normative Ideologies of Control in Managerial Discourse." Administrative Science Quarterly (September): 363-399.

Becker, S.W. 1993. "TQM Does Work: Ten Reasons Why Misguided Attempts Fail." Management Review (May): 30-33.

Bemowski, K. 1993. "Quality, American Style." Quality Progress (February): 65-69.

-----. 1995. "TQM: Flimsy Footing or Firm Foundation?" Quality Progress (July): 27-28.

Bhote, K.R. 1988. World Class Quality. New York, NY: AMA Membership Publications Division.

Brocka, B. and M.S. Brocka. 1992. Quality Management - Implementing the Best Ideas of the Masters. Homewood IL: Irwin.

Chatterjee, S. and M. Yilmaz. 1993. "Quality Confusion: Too Many Gurus, Not Enough Disciples." Business Horizons (May-June):15-18.

Conway, W.E. 1992. The Quality Secret: The Right Way to Manage[C]. Nashua, NH: Conway Quality, Inc.

Crosby, P.B. 1964. "Z is for Zero-Defects". Industrial Quality Control (October):182-185

-----. 1979. Quality is Free. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

-----. 1984. Quality Without Tears - The Art of Hassle-Free Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Dean, J.W. and D.E. Bowen. 1994. "Management Theory and Total Quality: Improving Research and Practice Through Theory Development." The Academy of Management Review 19(3): 392-418.

Delbridge, R., P. Turnbull, and B. Wilkinson. 1992. "Pushing Back the Frontiers: Management Control and Work Intensification Under JIT/TQM Factory Regimes." New Technology, Work and Employment 7(2): 97-106.

Deming, W.E. 1982. Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

-----. 1986. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT/CAES.

-----. 1993. The New Economics - For Industry, Government, Education. Cambridge, MA: MIT/CAES.

Dobbins, R.D. 1995. "A Failure of Methods, Not Philosophy." Quality Progress (July): 31-33.

Dreyfuss, J. 1988. "Victories in the Quality Crusade." Fortune (October 10): 80-88.

du Gay, P. and G. Salaman. 1992. "The Cult[ure] of the Customer." Journal of Management Studies 29(5): 615-633.

du Gay, P. 1996. Consumption and Identity at Work. London: Sage.

Ebel, K.E. 1991. Achieving Excellence in Business - A Practical Guide to the Total Quality Transformation Process. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Press.

Feigenbaum, A.C. 1956. "Total Quality Control." Harvard Business Review (November-December): 93-101.

-----. 1961. Total Quality Control New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

-----. 1991. Total Quality Control (Third Edition, revised). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

-----. 1997. "Changing Concepts and Management of Quality Worldwide." Quality Progress (December): 45-48.

Garvin, D.A. 1984. "What Does "Product Quality" Really Mean?" Sloan Management Review (Fall): 25-39.

-----. 1988. Managing Quality - The Strategic and Competitive Edge. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Gehani, R.R. 1993. "Quality Value-Chain: A Meta-Synthesis of Frontiers of Quality Movement." Academy of Management Executive 7(2): 29-42.

Grinnell, J.R. 1994. "Optimize the Human System." Quality Progress (November): 63-67.

Hammonds, K.H. 1991. "Where Did They Go Wrong?" Business Week, Quality 1991: 34-38.

Harari, O. 1993a. "Ten Reasons Why TQM Doesn't Work." Management Review (January): 33-38.

-----. 1993b. "The Eleventh Reason Why TQM Doesn't Work." Management Review (May): 31-36.

Harrington, H.J. 1987. The Improvement Process - How America's Leading Companies Improve Quality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates