TQM Review

7/28/2019 TQM Review

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tqm-review 1/20

This article was downloaded by: [National Technial University of Athens]On: 30 January 2012, At: 10:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Total Quality Management & Business

ExcellencePublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

A review of the theory and practice

of managing TQM: An integrative

frameworkEbrahim Soltani a , Pei-Chun Lai b , Sayed Reza Sayed Javadeen c

& Tahmoores Hassan Gholipourc

aKent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

bDepartment of Hospitality Management, National Pingtung

University of Science and Technology, Pingtung, Taiwanc

Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Available online: 29 Apr 2008

To cite this article: Ebrahim Soltani, Pei-Chun Lai, Sayed Reza Sayed Javadeen & Tahmoores Hassan

Gholipour (2008): A review of the theory and practice of managing TQM: An integrative framework,

Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 19:5, 461-479

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783360802018103

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary

sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions




http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783360802018103




A review of the theory and practice of managing TQM: An integrative framework

Ebrahim SoltaniaÃ, Pei-Chun Laib, Sayed Reza Sayed Javadeenc and TahmooresHassan Gholipourc

aKent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK;

b Department of Hospitality Management, National

Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Pingtung, Taiwan;cFaculty of Management, University of Tehran,

Tehran, Iran

This paper on Total Quality Management (TQM) is concerned with the problem of defining quality aswell as examining a universal set of precepts to safeguard it as a management philosophy. In contrastto the traditional approaches to the subject, which tends to see things largely in universalistic terms,this paper, through a comparative analysis of this view versus contingent approach, argues that theactual practice of TQM is deeply rooted in specific contexts. Having recognised the implications of various definitions, precepts and approaches in more detail, this paper then goes on to considerwhether quality-driven organisations are in a state of transition, or if not, what would be the mainbarriers that impede transition to a stable total quality (TQ) environment. Here, particular attention

is given to the role and status of senior management. Based on these issues, the paper suggests anintegrative hypothesised framework of the linkages between top management commitment andTQM success or failure; and concludes with critical challenges ahead for organisationalresearchers to advance knowledge in the field of TQM.

Keywords: TQM definition; TQM precepts; TQM failure; senior management and leadership

Introduction

Depending on how it is defined, quality management appears to have moved in and out of fashion

over the last 50 years, both as an organisational change initiative or as a subject of study, reflectingthe importance of prevention rather than inspection with the consequence of customer satisfaction.

Views about what has been happening to quality management turn on a number of separate but

related perspectives. On the one hand, the early version of quality management owed much to

the circumstances of the 1940s in Japan: low productivity and quality of their life. This in turn

has resulted in establishing statistical control techniques and quality control education programmes.

Consequently, in Japan, this decade was declared to be the statistical quality control (SQC) period.

One characteristic of the 1940s’ quality management was that top management remained aloof

from quality control activities. In the 1950s, on the other hand, quality control activities and

Total Quality Management

Vol. 19, No. 5, May 2008, 461–479

ÃCorresponding author. Email: [email protected]

1478-3363 print/1478-3371 online# 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14783360802018103http://www.informaworld.com



company-wide quality control (CWQC) were launched and hence this period was designated

the ‘years of total quality control’ (TQC). In contrast to the 1940s, top management had a key

role in managing the quality activities (see Deming, 1986; Feignbaum, 2004; Juran, 1989;

Waldman et al., 1998; Kanji Quality Culture, 2006; Lakhe & Mohanty, 1994).

Since then, the context has changed – and so have the concerns: it became clear that someaspects of the TQM philosophy could also be applied to non-manufacturing functions such as

product development, purchasing, and billing, with potential applications in service organis-

ations and non-profit making organisations (Powell, 1995); quality management has moved

from an initial stage of inspecting, sorting and correcting standards to an era of developing

quality manuals and controlling process performance; quality management systems have been

developed for third-party certification; quality management has become an strategic organis-

ational concern that is based on continuous improvement as the driving force, i.e. TQM

(see Garvin, 1988); integrity, methodology and humanity have become as the essential features

of quality management (Nessa L’Abbe, 1991); the world economy has changed and competition

has intensified; and quality management has been viewed as a national ‘survival’ strategy

(Wilkinson et al., 1998). Quality management failure – due to the fact that many of TQM

programmes were considered ‘unsuccessful’ by the managements who had instituted them

(see Crosby, 1979; Training and Development, 1992; Choi & Behling, 1997; Smith et al.,

1994, p. 75; Wilkinson et al., 1998, p. 65; Soltani et al., 2003, 2004); and low competence,

commitment and capacity of top management – referred to as change agent or as Kanji

(Kanji Quality Culture, 2004) put it, ‘prime to business excellence’ – are the key concerns

(see Timperley & Sisson, 1990; Waldman et al., 1998, 2004).

It is with the changing nature of TQM that this paper is primarily concerned. It begins by con-

sidering, in the next section, how a number of influential commentators have defined quality

management. In view of the abundance of various quality management models, the third

section then goes on to discuss the fundamentals of quality management. The fourth sectionconsiders the universal versus contingent orientation views to quality management. Taking a

theoretical framework, the fifth section then examines TQM failure and highlights the main

barriers to its implementation. The sixth and the final section concludes with an integrative

framework about the prospects for the adoption of TQM; and the need for further research on

the factors that appear to militate against top management commitment toward TQM.

Quality management: what is the definition?

In recent years, as companies have been confronted by fierce competition, and have struggled

with a range of other environmental changes, many if not most have initiated changes of onesort or another in order to improve their viability (Storey, 1995). Hence, it is relatively easy

to find numerous signs of initiating organisational change programmes in today’s organisations.

In more elaborate language, the idea of, as Storey (1995, p. 1) put it, ‘the management of change

has come to assume a place which is part and parcel of the everyday job responsibility of the

manager’. From the Business Week and The Economist pages and from sources as Conference

Board, EFQM, ISO, IPM, ESRC, AQAF and the Deming Institute, examples assail us of

moves to TQM, to produce products and services that meet and exceed the needs and

expectations of customers (Dale, 2003), to obtain a strategic orientation, to improve performance

with the consequence of greater competitiveness (Anderson & Sohal, 1999; Zhang, 2000;

Escrig-Tena, 2004; Williams et al., 2004); the launch of many other such has also beenannounced initiatives (e.g. Six-Sigma, Balanced Scorecard, HR Scorecard, JIT & BPR).

462 E. Soltani et al.



Despite the volume of writing on TQM’s application, few practitioners and scholars interested

in quality management can articulate precisely what it is meant by the term ‘quality’ (Oakland,

1998). In fact, quality has proved to be a difficult concept to pin down (Wilkinson et al., 1998).

Much more specifically, it can be argued that the lack of a clear definition of TQM is problematic

at two levels. First, at the surface level, the existence of a vast spectrum of topics and approachesto quality management will impede theory development associated with TQM (see Flynes,

1999). Secondly, at a deeper level, the lack of a clear definition makes it difficult to associate

TQM initiatives with the bottom line (see Reeves & Bednar, 1994).

There has also been much debate about the search for this high level of ambiguity, as

Wilkinson et al. (1998) display in their work based on theory and practice of TQM. In relation

to the neglect of a definition of quality, Wilkinson et al.’s (1998, p. 7) analysis of the TQM

literature identified two important issues: the first stems from ‘the difficulty in doing so’; and

the second is the existence of a ‘wide variety of activities and practices under the TQM umbrella’

(Wilkinson et al., 1998, p. 9). To appreciate the problem with a universal definition of quality

management, Wilkinson et al. (1998, p. 7) also borrowed a quote from Garvin (1988, p. xi):

quality is an unusually slippery concept, easy to visualise and yet exasperatingly difficult to define.

What is obvious is that different authors have given various definitions of TQM. Of these, Garvin

(1984) appears to be one of the first classifications to appear in the literature, and it captures this

ambiguity by differentiating among five definitions of quality: (i) transcendental: excellence of

the highest standard, (ii) product-based: dependent on the attributes, (iii) user-based: satisfying or

exceeding the wants of customers; (iv) manufacturing-based: conformance to requirements, and

(v) value-based: value for money. An alternative approach to reconciling the potential contradic-

tions in the concept of quality is Reeves and Bednar’s four-way classification of quality definitions

in which they incorporate excellence, value, conformance to specifications and meeting and/or

exceeding customer requirements. The diversity inherent in these definitions, as they pointed out,implies that ‘the quality construct space is so broad and includes so many components that there

would be little utility in any model that tried to encompass them all’ (Reeves & Bednar, 1994,

p. 441). Quality has been defined, for example, as being about value (Feigenbaum, 1983), confor-

mance to standards, specifications or requirements (Crosby, 1979), fitness for use (Juran, 1989),

meeting or exceeding customer expectations (Parasuraman et al., 1985), a predictable degree of

uniformity and dependability, at low cost and suited to the market (Deming, 1986). In terms of

TQM from the viewpoints of quality management gurus, as Wilkinson et al. (1998, p. 8) have

pointed out, ‘the quality gurus’ conception of quality is meeting reliable and consistent standards

in line with customer requirements’. Others (e.g. Kanji, 1995) focus on the employees’ involvement

and commitment as a prerequisite for achieving quality.Attempts to provide a clear definition for the concept of quality have taken two forms.

The first is the strength of each of these approaches with regard to ‘generalisability’, ‘ease of

measurement’ and ‘utility’ (Wilkinson et al., 1998). The second is the weakness of a universal

definition for quality. This is due to the fact that such an attempt requires great care to include

and cover all precepts at the heart of quality management and, not least, the commitment and

knowledge of the managers and managed who are going to use it (Reeves & Bednar, 1994).

Taking a holistic approach to TQM – leaving aside explicit ambiguity in defining the concept

of quality – the British Quality Association (BQA) presented three closely linked definitions of

TQM. The first definition stresses the ‘soft’ qualitative characteristics involving such themes as:

customer orientation, culture of excellence, removal of performance barriers, teamwork, train-ing, and employee participation. From this perspective, as Wilkinson et al. (1998) commented,

Total Quality Management 463



TQM is seen as consistent with open management styles, delegated responsibility and increased

autonomy to staff. The second BQA definition defines TQM in terms of ‘hard’ aspects of quality

management practices, as Wilkinson et al. (1998, p. 14) put it, ‘“hard” production/operations

management type of view’. Examples of such issues are: systematic measurement and control

of work, setting standards of performance and using statistical procedures to assess quality.Finally, the third definition covers both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ practices, comprising three features

(Wilkinson et al., 1992): (i) an obsession with quality, (ii) the need for a scientific approach,

(iii) the review that all employees are to be involved in this process. Oakland (1998) takes a

mixture of both hard and soft approaches and depicts TQM as a pyramid representing five

distinct components including: (i) management commitment (apex of the model), (ii) customer-

supplier chain, (iii) quality systems, (iv) statistical process control (SPC) tools, and (v) teamwork.

In consequence, Oakland (1998, pp. 2–3) advocates a definition of this mode as follows:

TQM is an approach to improving the effectiveness and flexibility of business as a whole, meetingcustomer requirements both external and internal to the organisation. It is essentially a way of organ-

ising and involving the whole organisation, every department, every single person at every level.

It could indeed be no more and no less than another definition for TQM, but, as usually

perceived, at least it has the virtue of emphasising the need to satisfy customers’ expectations

as its raison d’etre.

TQM is a managerial approach that ensures mutual co-operation of everyone in an organisation andassociated business processes to produce products and services that meet and, hopefully, exceed theneeds and expectations of customers. (Dale, 2003)

Finally, Wilkinson et al. (1998, pp. 2–3) were trying to give support and guidelines for an

approach to the definition of quality that would help it to be defined properly through the recog-nition of a number of common themes: (i) quality can be defined as ‘fitness for use’, including

both quality of design (how a customer’s requirements are translated into a set of specifications)

and conformance to the design (how an operation conforms to the specification of the design

standard); (ii) quality management emphasises not only the external customer but also the

internal customer (i.e. emphasis on the concept of quality chain as central to TQM); and (iii)

management is charged with ultimate responsibility for quality because 85% of failures are

reckoned to be the fault of inadequate management systems.

No doubt many attempts at quality management were devoted to the definition of quality.

Hence, various definitions and approaches have been espoused. What appears to be the case

is that we cannot really ask what TQM looks like in practice unless we have a universaldefinition of what quality management should constitute. Otherwise, we run the danger of

accepting as TQM any practices so labelled, even if distinguishable from what non-TQM

organisations would do (see Legge, 1995). To suggest, in the light of the evidence presented

above, that there are signs of the emergence of an all-embracing approach towards the definition

of quality management may appear far-fetched. In theory, there is still a crucial debate about the

exact nature of TQM. In fact, a review of the literature on TQM practices indicates that the

evidence abounds with typical definitions of both hard and soft approaches of quality manage-

ment. It should be noted that, however, when for any reason there is ambiguity in the definition

of TQM, this ambiguity makes TQM misunderstood, and consequently its applications will be

misapplied. TQM then might be seen as dysfunctional in that it can then detract from favourableoutcomes for both organisations and employees.




Quality management: what are the precepts?

The need for a universal set of principles to safeguard TQM as a management philosophy has been

recognised since the 1950s in the wake of introducing the Deming prize by the Union of Japanese

Scientists and Engineers (JUSE). Since then, these principles have been developed and revised in

an attempt to remove the confusion about what TQM actually comprises. The confusion and dif-

ficulty with a set of generally accepted TQM precepts and principles has a very long history, going

back to 1940s. This is due to the fact that each writer’s version of TQM principles reflects their

management background. The plethora of various perspectives on quality management indicates

acceptance of some key variables to ensure achieving superior quality outcomes through a quality

workforce. Based on the TQM gurus’ prescriptions for a stable quality-driven environment,

Table 1 tries to summarise the most popular perspectives on TQM.

Since then, what appears to be the case is that different quality management scholars identify a

‘set of key variables’ that they claim are essential to achieving business excellence. Taguchi &

Clausing (1990), for example, emphasised the inclusion of customer-based specifications in the

design of a product or process. For Sitkin et al. (1994, p. 541), these precepts can be conceptuallydistinguished into three clusters: (i) focusing on customer satisfaction, (ii) stressing continuous

improvement, and (iii) treating the organisation as a total system. In a similar vein, based on pre-

vious research, Cardy (1998, p. 133) summarised and characterised the quality orientation within

two fundamental characteristics: (i) customer orientation, and (ii) a prevention approach to

errors. From Garvin’s (1986) point of view, TQM may also be viewed functionally as an inte-

gration of two basic functions – i.e. total quality control and quality management. An important

extension to the TQM framework has included benchmarking – i.e. measuring products or

services against those of world-class organisations – as a fundamental precept of TQM

(Camp, 1989).

A review of the above arguments reveals that TQM gurus and specialists have givenincreasing attention to the creation of a total quality environment through introducing a set of

Table 1. Popular perspectives on TQM.

Deming’s 14 points The Juran TRILOGY Crosby’s 14 quality steps

1. Consistency of purpose2. Adopt the philosophy3. Do not rely on mass

inspection4. Do not award business on

price5. Constant improvement6. Training7. Leadership8. Drive out fear9. Break down barriers

10. Eliminate slogans andexhortations

11. Eliminate quotas12. Pride of workmanship13. Education and retraining14. Plan of action

I. Quality Planning-Set goals-Identify customers and

their needs-Develop products and

processesII. Quality control

-Evaluate performance-Compare to goals and

adaptIII. Quality improvement

-Establish infrastructure-Identify projects and

teams-Provide resources and

training-Establish controls

1. Management commitment2. Quality improvement teams3. Quality measurement4. Cost of quality evaluation5. Quality awareness

6. Corrective action7. Zero-defects committee8. Supervisor training9. Zero-defects day

10. Goal-setting11. Error cause removal12. Recognition13. Quality councils14. Do it over again

Source: Deming (1986); Juran (1989); Crosby (1979).




generally accepted TQM precepts. This process, it is argued, has been reinforced by the

accelerating pace of customers expectations and exceeding their needs, with ‘quality’ emerging

as a means of business excellence. Such outcomes are further supported by Kanji’s Business

Excellence Model (KBEM) highlighting the route to business excellence through linking

several core elements of TQM (see Figure 1).In the light of the above analysis, the following elements appear to be key to TQM (Waldman,

1994, pp. 511 – 512): upper management commitment to place quality as a top priority; striving

continually to improve employee capabilities and work processes; involvement of all organis-

ational members in cooperative, team-based effort to achieve quality improvement efforts;

meeting customers’ expectations at the least cost (this requires a focus on quality throughout

all phases of the design, production and delivery of product/service – i.e. not just the end

product); attempts to involve external suppliers and customers involved in TQM efforts;

frequent use of scientific and problem-solving techniques, including statistical process

control; the institution of leadership practices oriented towards TQM values and vision; and

the development of quality culture.

The vital distinction between these various types of perspectives and approaches to quality man-

agement can perhaps be seen as resting upon whether a synergic blend of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ quality

factors (Oakland, 1998) are recognised or not. The former, Wilkinsonet al. (1998) argue, reflects the

production orientation of the quality ‘gurus’, whilst the soft side emphasises the management of

human resources in the organisation and lays particular focus on the need to change culture. Funda-

mentally, this raises the issueas to whether the emphasis in the managerial approach will be upon the

system or people. The ‘soft’ people-based approaches to quality and all that flows from it may be

regarded as either a ‘given’ or a decision to be made. Here, although the ‘hard’ statistical and

‘soft’ people-based approaches or system versus individual employees is the continuing thread

running throughout TQM research, one is tempted to say soft aspects of quality have no place on

the top-management agenda. And indeed, some commentators (e.g. Wilkinson, 1994) havewarned that quality management faces its biggest problem in ‘soft’ areas suchas workforce manage-

ment. Wilkinson et al. (1998) went on to stress the need for a more critical appraisal of TQM,

Figure 1. Kanji’s Business Excellence Model (KBEM).Source: http://www.gopal-kanji.com






TQM, advocated as universally applicable to organisations, ‘is in danger of being “oversold”,

inappropriately implemented, and ineffective’ (Sitkin et al., 1994, p. 538). Indeed, Sitkin and

colleagues note, this may explain some of the failures of TQM that have received attention in

the popular press (e.g. Kearney, 1992; Smith et al., 1994; Wilkinson et al., 1998). Wilkinson

et al. (1992) succinctly captured this issue based on three case studies and provided fourreasons in response to: why organisations find it difficult to sustain commitment to quality man-

agement, as follows. (i) The approach to TQM adopted by these firms departed from the pre-

scriptions of TQM advocates by being ‘bolted on’ to existing activities. There was also a

‘quick fix’ approach rather than a long-term commitment. (ii) TQM can lead to conflict

between different interest groups within management. Managers are ‘political actors’ not the

mere technical resource assumed by the prescriptive literature. (iii) The industrial relations

implications are often neglected. (iv) There is a potential contradiction between employee invol-

vement and managerial needs for control.

The universal orientation of quality management, however, has been pointed out as contrast-

ing with the contingent approach of management theory in general (Dean & Bowen, 1994). That

is, Sitkin et al. (1994, p. 2) point out, when systems are poorly attuned to contextual require-

ments, a number of problems may ensue. According to the contingency perspective, TQM prin-

ciples and associated practices should be matched appropriately to situational requirements. If

not, the potential contributions of TQM could be lost. Furthermore, Sousa & Voss (2001,

p. 384) argue, more recent rigorous academic studies have raised doubts as to the universal

validity of the whole set of quality management practices. The existing literature, although

sparse, clearly raises the possibility of quality management practices being context dependent.

Four studies stand out as the main rigorous and explicit efforts in this area: Benson et al. (1991),

Sitkin et al. (1994), Reed et al. (1996), and Sousa & Voss (2001). Sousa & Voss’s (2001, p. 400)

study, for instance, strongly suggests that process quality management practices are contingent

on a plant’s manufacturing strategy, and identifies mechanisms between individual process prac-tices, forming an internally coherent quality management practice configuration matching a

plant’s manufacturing strategy configuration (see also, Maani, 1989; Powell, 1995; Dow

et al., 1999; Ahire et al., 1996). In sum, all these studies have directly or tangentially addressed

the influence of context on quality management practice, thus lending support for a contingency

approach to TQM. In consequence, this raises the question of whether the disappointment and

dissatisfaction with TQM results are due to conceptual flaws in the TQM approach or implemen-

tation deficiencies. Most authors (e.g. Atkinson, 1990; Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Wilkinson

et al., 1998; Samson & Terziovski, 1999; Silvestro, 2001) recognise the virtues of the broad

quality management model and attribute failures to implementation problems (see, for further

details, Sousa & Voss, 2001). In short, the overall patterns that emerge from the abovereview of the literature suggest that (Sitkin et al., 1994, p. 538):

TQM is not a panacea that can be unthinkingly used, but that it must be implemented with a clear senseof the degree to which the context is characterised by uncertainty, nonroutineness, and/or instability.

or in Wilkinson et al.’s (1998, p. 183) view:

The success or failure of quality management initiatives may have more to do with organisation-specific factors, particularly the extent to which initiatives are implemented in a strategic mannerwith continuing management commitment, than with sectoral factors.

To summarise, if TQM is seen to be implemented effectively, one final question remains andthis relates to the issue of the context-free versus context-dependent approach to TQM. As the




literature on TQM shows, this is one of the most often-cited issues of TQM. Despite the host of

examples of take-up of a proper approach to TQM, its development, and implementation, there

is still almost no robust evidence available about the extent to which organisations have in fact

managed to tailor their TQM initiatives to their organisations’ needs and requirements. Among

the many quality practitioners who have stated that TQM needs to be tailored to the organis-ation is Atkinson (1990). For Atkinson, organisations employ different technology and differ in

terms of histories, backgrounds, markets, products and human capital. Consequently, the drive

towards continuous improvement has to be handled differently. Others (e.g. Silvestro, 2001;

Wilkinson et al., 1998) further recognised and verified the need to reflect on the danger that

comes in the wake of adopting any generic model of TQM implementation; as Silvestro

(2001, p. 286) puts it, ‘the tendency to develop a static and fixed view of TQM principles

and management practices which all organisation should strive to implement regardless of

their operational context’. Silvestro’s study to explore the implementation of TQM in different

types of service, produced results consistent with the literature and recommends that future

models of TQM will consist of not so much a fixed set of precepts, but a series of strategic

and operational choices that service managers can consider in planning their implementation

of TQM.

Here, we reach the crux of the matter, for the evidence suggests that when there is ambiguity

in the concept of TQM, the effects of such ambiguity are twofold: first, it impedes theory devel-

opment associated with TQM; and second, it makes it difficult to associate TQM initiatives with

the bottom line, and then unsatisfactory TQM outcomes will follow. Figure 2 shows the impli-

cation of such ambiguity in the concept, precepts and approaches to quality management and

their interconnections.

In essence, as the review of the literature indicates, the thesis advanced is that theory devel-

opment of TQM and the belief that TQM will enhance the bottom line will be influenced by the

Figure 2. A framework of the association between ambiguity in the TQM concept and its implications forsubsequent implementation.




type of definition that is given to the concept of quality and by the particular set of generally

accepted precepts and assumptions associated with the continuous improvement culture.

Here, the responsibility of the research community is to make enough effort towards reconciling

the potential contradictions in the concept. In the light of these efforts and towards creating a

total quality culture, then the top management strategic task – as the ‘prime’ of Kanji’s BusinessExcellence Model and apex of Oakland’s (1998) Quality Model – is to take certain fundamental

actions regarding its implementation. Here, several clusters of support are seen as especially

important (Kanji Quality Culture, 2006; Kanji, 1998): to define a mission, vision and goals

that promote a quality culture; to establish a set of shared values; to define a quality strategy;

to better coordinate the use of resources in order to improve financial performance; to establish

goals and systems to enhance customer satisfaction; to establish effective information systems

and to use objective data in the decision process; to promote the development of the human

resources, investing on training and education and to recognise quality achievements; and to

communicate, define and motivate continuous improvement.

As the framework shows, a set of less generally-accepted quality management principles

could have three implications: to give priority to either ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ aspects of quality man-

agement at the price of underestimating the other; to have an independent effect on the level of

ambiguity in the quality concept (see dotted lines in Figure 2); and to reinforce either ‘universal’

or ‘contingent’ approaches to quality management. Taking a universal or contingent approach to

quality management, it is argued, can have an independent effect on the implementation process.

This is due to the fact that either approach prescribes a different methodology for TQM

implementation. Overall, the model draws attention to the implication of such ambiguity in

the concept for TQM implementation: the higher the ambiguity, the poorer the implementation

and the more disappointed the management. Before we leave this framework it is worth empha-

sising that it is this primary ambiguity and mix between concept, precepts, approaches and their

associated prescriptions that make much of TQM writing so messy with the consequence that itis unattractive for practitioners.

Quality management failure: what are the barriers?

In recent years, TQM has come under increasing pressure as a management fad rather than an

organisational panacea, and the main source of this pressure has been the high rate of failure

across various organisational contexts. A far-ranging and thorough study on the evaluation

of TQM is by Wilkinson et al. (1998, pp. 61–87) who analyse both the importance of quality

in business strategies and evaluation of TQM. Having compared the findings of the majorEuropean studies on the effectiveness of TQM, the results suggest that quality management

has become more widespread in both the UK and the USA. Although the research had demon-

strated some evidence of successful implementation with a significant impact on organisational

performance, the results were, however, in the words of authors, ‘disappointing for the propo-

nents of TQM in a large number of cases’ (Wilkinson et al., 1998, p. 86).

This directs attention to the issue of TQM implementation. A review of the current academic

literature on TQM implementation (e.g. Deming, 1986; Oakland, 1998; Dale, 2003; Wilkinson

et al., 1994; Kanji, 1995) indicates that implementation of TQM is not an easy task as it requires

a total change in organisation culture, shifting of responsibility to management, and continuous

participation of all in the quality improvement process. Oakland (1998), for instance, asserts thatduring the introduction of TQM, or several years into its implementation, different types of




problems may arise. In this regard, Dale & Lightburn (1992) also report that not all

companies are willing to embrace the fundamentals of TQM. More recently, such unsatisfactory

outcomes of TQM programmes have been observed by Soltani et al.’s (2006) study of 150

EFQM-affiliated organisations in the UK.

It is important not to get carried away, however. Clarifying what has caused and createdsuch ineffective TQM implementation followed by unsatisfactory outcomes will be worthwhile

and definitely cast light on solving the problem. The weight of evidence from various sources,

coupled with what is known about the very difficult experience of many TQM implementation

programmes would seem to support this long-life concern. The picture, as far as practice is

concerned, is clear enough. The observation that can be made from the review of TQM litera-

ture is what little advance has been made to its implementation since the first wave of quality

management gurus in 1950s. Here one implication is that the absence of a sound strategy has

often contributed to ineffective quality improvement (e.g. Deming, 1986; Oakland, 1998; Dale

& Cooper, 1994; Kanji, 1998). Such words are echoed by Juran’s (1986) comment that,

deficiencies in the original planning cause a process to run at a high level of chronic waste.

This is due to the fact that quality planning is given low priority on senior management

agenda (see Whalen & Rahim, 1994). A similar conclusion is inescapable, which is a ‘lack

of top management commitment’, followed by another common problem in implementing a

quality programme: the lack of acceptance by middle and lower managers (Waldman et al.,

1998; Dean & Bowen, 1994). Newall & Dale (1990), for example, confirmed that the majority

of problems are usually within the middle strata, and cited one cause as the erroneous belief

that nothing is wrong with the current system and management. As Cox (1990) has pointed

out however, a middle management ‘mafia’ often sabotages a large portion of genuine

worker initiative and innovation because it is not convinced that TQM is a worthwhile

pursuit. In the majority of reports on TQM failure, one common theme stands out: that lack

of top management commitment would result in (i) poor planning, (ii) workforce resistance,and (iii) failure to change organisational philosophy. At its simplest therefore, various levels

of barriers are evident: poor planning, lack of top management commitment, workforce resist-

ance, lack of proper training, teamwork complacency, use of an off-the-shelf package, failure

to change organisational philosophy, and ineffective measurement of quality improvement

(Whalen & Rahim, 1994). The main concern here is primarily with the lack of top management

commitment, not with employee resistance, nor the lack of proper training or even failure to

change organisational philosophy. In simple terms, such barriers to organisational changes of

any sort, it is argued, could easily be attributed to low commitment of senior management

(see Rodgers et al., 1993; Soltani, 2005).

In theory in its idealised, universal model, TQM success is determined by highly committedsenior management followed by their long-run decisions on the direction and scope of the TQM

initiatives. Specifically, in his emphasis on the role of senior management, Deming (1986)

strongly argues that management is responsible for 94% of quality problems. This perception

of management responsibility appears to underlie Deming’s approach to improving quality

with its emphasis on dismantling the barriers that prevent employees doing a good job, and

then encouraging them to work smarter, not harder. In a similar vein, Juran’s (1989) premise

is that management attitudes are the key to achieving quality improvement. In Juran’s view –

also consistent with Deming (1986) – less than 20% of quality problems are due to shop

floor workers, with the remainder caused by management. Similar comments have also been

observed and discussed by Feigenbaum (1983) and Crosby (1979). Feigenbaum, for example,had developed the point about senior management being an essential component of TQM




success and noted that managers must develop a clear, long-term, customer-oriented quality

management process that every employee can understand and commit to (IPM, 1993; Quality

gurus, 2004). Perhaps reflecting the nature and requirements of TQM, Crosby (1979) intends

to widen the responsibilities of top executives, and hence he emphasised that management

must take prime responsibility for poor quality and specifically be as concerned about qualityas they are about profit. Regrettably, what actually happens is that TQM appears torn

between the heavy emphasis on senior management as the prime to business excellence

(Kanji Quality Culture, 2006) in theory and low commitment of the senior management team

in practice.

Put simply, the majority of senior management are still not fully supportive and committed to

TQM philosophy; and many of those who are still choose to see it as a measure aimed at increas-

ing short-term profit, rather than as Wilkinson et al. (1998, p. 20) put it, ‘a national “survival”

strategy’. The result is that s large number of organisations, in both public and private sectors,

would implement various TQM programmes with no long-term benefits. The fact that such atti-

tudes towards organisational change programmes in general and TQM in particular, are held by a

significant proportion of today’s management, it can be argued, reflects a series of limiting

assumptions on their part about senior management’s (Keep, 1995, p. 120) vital role to deter-

mine, quickly and accurately, the cause of failure and hence implement the decisions necessary

for its prompt recovery (Lohrke et al., 2004, p. 63).

Senior management and TQM implementation: an integrative framework

The previous sections of the paper clearly presented the view that there is an incompatibility

between the theory and practice of TQM initiatives. Despite such conflict, the best available

evidence, however, indicates that there has been no collapse of its application and institutions.But it is reasonable to accept that the density of TQM-driven organisations has steadily declined

compared with the 1980s, and this decline is steeper than that found in the last two decades.

However, as it has been argued earlier (see Deming, 1986; Feigenbaum, 1983; Crosby, 1987),

most of this can be accounted for by low commitment of the senior management team. The

important point to note here is that the decline in commitment cannot be attributed to any

significant flaw in TQM assumptions and precepts. Further support for this position can be

found in all the main surveys of TQM-driven organisations (e.g. Atkinson, 1990; Dale &

Cooper, 1994; Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Wilkinson et al., 1998; Sitkin et al., 1994;

Oakland, 1998; Samson and Terziovski, 1999; Kanji Quality Culture, 2004; Silvestro, 2001;

Dale, 2003), which show that the central barrier to TQM effectiveness lies in the lowcommitment from the top, which still exists.

We also know from the same sources that there have been other change initiatives in many

organisations to increase quality and productivity and to take other steps on the path towards

total quality organisation. Given the assumed vital role of senior management on all these

approaches, how can we explain such low commitment? One obvious answer is that the under-

lying assumptions of TQM have not been properly communicated and understood (see Figure 2).

This is essentially the view of Garvin (1988) and Wilkinson et al. (1998). Wilkinson et al. (1998,

p. 7), for example, summarised the reason for the ambiguity in the nature of quality in the fol-

lowing way: ‘the neglect of defining quality stems from the difficulty in doing so’. Here the

implication is clear: when for any reason there is ambiguity in the concept of TQM,the effects of such ambiguity are threefold: first, TQM will be misunderstood; second, its




applications will be misapplied; and finally, TQM might be seen as dysfunctional in that it can

then detract from favourable outcomes for both the organisation and employee.

A second possibility, and the one which there is some evidence (Deming, 1986; Bennis &

O’Toole, 2000; Schwinn, 2002; Dalgleish, 2003), is the mobility of management. Essentially,

what this means is that upper levels of leadership do not remain in their job long enough tounderstand how to make a significant impact. In Deming’s (1986) opinion, job-hopping

managers never understand their organisational context and are never on board long enough

to follow through on long-term changes that are necessary for quality and productivity

(see also, Deming, 1993; Walton, 1986; Roberts & Sergesketter, 1993). Assuming this to be

the case there may a point where a challenge does exist. On the one hand, one can be highly

committed to TQM as a management of philosophy and a set of guiding precepts, believing

that he/she will remain long enough on the job to fulfil the commitments. Or, on the other

hand, one could be less committed to TQM as a process of continuous improvement because

he/she will not be in the job long enough to know about TQM, understand how to make a sig-

nificant impact, and what to do in terms of positive actions (see Dalgleish, 2003, p. 18). In either

scenario, as Dale & Cooper (1994, p. 20) put it, ‘it is likely that the quality improvement process

will stagnate, disillusionment will set in and, as a consequence, the corporate health of the

organisation will suffer’.

A third overlapping possibility, and one that has been supported by some of the research

on implementation of various change initiatives (e.g. Guest, 1995, p. 55; Dalgleish, 2003) is

that initiatives that appear impressive when described in the company head office become

heavily diluted in practice. In a similar vein, Dalgleish, (2003, p. 18) notes that the majority

of senior managements had a taste for various change initiatives related to quality during the

TQM years and have abandoned the effort to implement them further. For example, Bradley

& Hill (1987) have compared the impact and sustainability of quality circles in an American

and a British plant. At the British plant they found that middle management was opposed inprinciple to workers’ participation – central to TQM assumptions – and saw little benefit to

themselves in the quality circles. Therefore, despite some enthusiasm from senior manage-

ment and a claim by top management that quality circles were a reflection of their TQM,

most of the circles soon collapsed (cited in Guest, 1995, p. 55). This type of detailed evi-

dence suggests that the claims made by managements about the initiatives they are taking

must be treated with caution. There is often a lack of what Guest (1995, p. 55) has

termed ‘strategic integration’, in that those middle managers who are responsible for

making the innovations succeed lack either the ability or the commitment to ensure their

success.

A fourth and again overlapping possibility is that top management has failed to get an in-depthknowledge about TQM and other change initiatives. In this regard, there is evidence that senior

managers – owing to low awareness of TQM philosophy – do not take action to engage the

employees to recognise the TQM philosophy and its benefits (GMJ, 2002). As a result of

such insufficient knowledge of TQM practices, it is argued, people will resist or at least be

less committed to any change initiatives. Specifically, the problem arises at the point of

implementation.

Finally, in many organisational contexts, there may be a view that it is not necessary to try

radical changes through various change initiatives because it has been possible to do well

without them. Dalgleish (2003) summarises the position by referring to the dangerous mode

of operation that got the US economy into the industrial trouble 30 years ago, ‘if it isn’tbroken, do not try to improve it’. Yet despite the improvement in operations and hence




productivity, it seems that senior managers are more committed to the status quo – avoiding

taking risk – rather than being open-minded to radical changes (Hambrick et al., 1993). Here

the implication is clear: TQM in practice still lags far behind its theory. For further catching

up to occur, it seems likely that a fuller use of top management power and support will be necess-

ary. This is likely to require a shift in focus away from the tighter managerial control in the driveto reduce variance –i.e. commitment to the status quo – towards radical changes in the interest

of long-term success of various managerial initiatives. In the absence of fully committed top

executives towards managing TQM practices, if this shift occurs it is likely to do so at the

expense of the survival of organisation.

Specifically, to develop a better understanding of long-term organisational success/failure as

a function of high or low top management commitment, we believe, it is necessary to understand

how the degree of commitment from the top and other related consequences interact to cause

success or failure. In doing so, a conceptual framework hypothesising and depicting the

impact of, and relationship between, high/low commitment of senior management and its impli-

cations for organisation and employees appears (see Figure 3).

It is worth noting that the above framework does not give a comprehensive view on the

determinants of TQM success/failure. Instead, it only highlights the management-related

issues that contribute to the long-term success or failure of TQM programmes. Much more

specifically, the framework indicates that senior management commitment should be inte-

grated into the TQM strategy formulation process as well as attuning the TQM model at the

implementation stage; it stresses that such integration of senior management commitment

with the specific requirements of TQM has strong implications for both organisation and indi-

vidual employees; it looks for proactivity from the senior management; it emphasises the

visible consequences of senior management involvement in quality-related activities; and it

looks for coherence between management’s and employees’ priorities within the organisation’s

strategic thrust.Furthermore, the framework draws attention to the perceived most important factors in effec-

tive implementation of quality management initiatives. The integrative nature of the framework

maintains that all elements must be in harmony if the TQM programme is to be successful. The

increased emphasis given in recent years to the senior management commitment is emphasised

in the ‘H1 rectangle’. The three elements in the ‘H1 rectangle’ are all evidently elements firmly

within the realm of a fully committed top management – as opposed to those elements in the ‘L1

rectangle’ which adversely influence top management commitment. According to the frame-

work, other factors – the L2 rectangle – can have an independent effect on the implementation

process and therefore on the long-term survival of the organisation (see dotted lines in Figure 3).

These direct effects, we believe, are less valid if top management is fully committed to qualityinitiatives.

As mentioned earlier, this framework is, however, not a theory. It does not set out a com-

prehensive and interrelated set of all factors that contribute to the degree of top management

commitment, with the consequence of effective implementation of a particular change initiat-

ive and long-term organisational success. What it does do is point to factors that are perceived

to be important, and hence TQM scholars in particular and organisational researchers in

general could use it as a springboard for testing the propositions incorporated in the frame-

work. According to the proposed framework ‘the acid test’ is whether there is identifiable,

visible and top-down commitment from senior management to particular requirements of a

TQM programme, which consistently yield better results than before the quality initiativehas been taken up.




Conclusion

This paper has highlighted the potential contribution that the emergence of various TQM

initiatives might make towards the achievement of higher quality and productivity with the

consequence of business excellence. In particular, it has reviewed the work of TQM gurus

and scholars and offers a roadmap that, it is believed, will enable organisations to excel. It

also examined the ways in which TQM might enable senior management to widen their respon-

sibilities and become more accountable to organisational stakeholders. However, it appears thaton the basis of this evidence at least, these opportunities will not always be taken up, largely

Figure 3. Hypothesised linkages between top management commitment and TQM success or failure.




because of low or inadequate support and commitment from the top, with the consequence of

low support from the shopfloor (Kinnie, 1995). The issues discussed here, while highlighting

the potential contribution that TQM might make, have tended to concentrate on the reasons

why these opportunities are not taken up. The evidence discussed here shows clearly the

implementation issues that need to be considered before the advantages of TQM can beexploited. As such, this evidence is therefore consistent with that observed elsewhere where

experience in most previous cases highlighted the ‘lack of senior management commitment

and their visible participation’ as the main cause of TQM failure (see Rodgers et al., 1993;

Kanji, 1995; Choi & Behling, 1997; Soltani et al., 2006, 2008; Yeung & Armstrong, 2003).

Questions must now be posed about the extent to which top management is committed to

implementing TQM.

Although this paper provided some evidence for TQM failure, the evidence for ‘why top

management commitment dropped off so dramatically?’ was less clear. As the review of

literature demonstrated, there have been countless examples of organisations that started

TQM programmes with big announcements from the organisation’s leaders, only to have this

group lose interest or get their attention diverted, and nothing ever resulted from TQM except

increased employee frustration. What appears to be the reasoning behind such failure is that

commitment may not be a strong feature of the senior management (Fisher, 1995, p. 52).

In this regard, some advocates of TQM (e.g. Fisher, 1995; Zairi, 2002; Jackson, 2004) talk of

a particular type of commitment, which requires a full support from the top. Such commitment,

it is argued, makes it clear that TQM is important and that everyone’s participation and input is

needed.

Unfortunately, as has been outlined earlier (see Figures 2 and 3), there are a number of

deep-seated factors that appear to militate against continuous improvement in quality and

productivity and investment in total quality culture. These, in turn, have implications for the

widespread adoption of TQM initiatives. In view of the importance of these barriers to topmanagement commitment, it is perhaps surprising that, at least to date, they have not been

addressed in detail by much of the empirical research on TQM. Certainly identification of a

comprehensive list of such barriers requires further investigation, and it would seem important

that they constitute part of any future research agenda.

References

Ahire, S., Golhar, D., & Waller, M. (1996). Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs. Decision

Sciences, 27 (1), 23 –56.

Anderson, M., & Sohal, A.S. (1999). A study of the relationship between quality management practices and performancein small businesses. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management , 16 (9), 859–877.

Atkinson, P.E. (1990). Creating Culture Change: The key to successful total quality management . Bedford, IFS

Publications.

Bennis, W., & O’Toole, J. (2000). Don’t hire the wrong CEO. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 171–176.

Benson, G., Saraph, J., & Schroeder, R. (1991). The effects of organisational context on quality management: an

empirical investigation. Management Science, 37 (9), 1107–1124.

Bradley, K., & Hill, S. (1987). Quality circles and managerial interests. Industrial Relations, 26 (1), 325.

Camp, R.C. (1989). Benchmarking: the Search for Industry Best Practice that Leads to Superior Performance.

Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.

Cardy, R.L. (1998). Performance appraisal in a quality context: a new look at an old problem. In J.W. Smither (Ed.),

Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice (pp. 133–161). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Choi, T.Y., & Behling, O.C. (1997). Top managers and TQM success: one more look after all these years. Academy of Management Executives, 11(1), 37–47.




Cox, J. (1990). TQM and the buyer. Purchasing and Supply Management , 1(2), 17–20.

Crosby, P.B. (1979). Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain. New York: New American Library.

Crosby, P.B. (1987). Quality without Tears. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

Dale, B.G. (2003). Managing Quality, 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dale, B.G., & Cooper, C.L. (1994). Introducing TQM: the role of senior management. Management Decision, 329(1),

20–26.Dale, B.G., & Lightburn, K. (1992). Continuous quality improvement: why some organisations lack commitment. Indus-

trial Journal of Production Engineering, 27 (1), 52–67.

Dalgleish, S. (2003). Could Deming have been wrong? Quality, 42(6), 18.

Dean, J.W., & Bowen, D.E. (1994). Management theory and total quality: improving research and practice through

theory development. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 392–418.

Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MIT: Centre for Advanced Engineering Study.

Deming, W.E. (1993). The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education. Cambridge, MIT: Centre for Advanced

Engineering Study.

Dow, D., Samson, D., & Ford, S. (1999). Exploring the myth: do all quality management practices contribute to superior

quality performance? Production & Operation Management , 8(1), 1 –27.

Escrig-Tena, A.B. (2004). TQM as a competitive factor: a theoretical and empirical analysis. International Journal of

Quality & Reliability Management , 21(6), 612–637.

Feigenbaum, A.V. (1983). Total Quality Control, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Feigenbaum, A.V. (2004). Total Quality Control. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.

Fisher, C.M. (1995). The difference between appraisal schemes: Variation and acceptability – part II. Personnel Review,

249(1), 51– 66.

Flynes, B. (1999). Quality management practices: a review of the literature. Insh Business and Administration Research

(IBAR), 19–20(2): 113–138.

Garvin, D. (1984). What does product quality really mean? Sloan Management Review, 26 (1), 25–43.

Garvin, D. (1986). Quality problems, policies and attitudes in the United States and Japan: an exploratory study. Academy

of Management Journal, 29(4), 653–753.

Garvin, D. (1988). Managing Quality. New York: Free Press.

GMJ (2002). Start worrying about ‘not engaged’ employees. Gallup Management Journal [Online]. Available: http://gmi.gallup.com (accessed March 2005).

Guest, D.A. (1995). Human resource management: its implications for industrial relations and trade unions. In J. Storey

(Ed.), New Perspectives on Human Resource Management (pp. 41–55). London: Routledge.

Hackman, J.R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: empirical, conceptual, and practical issues.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 309–342.

Hambrick, D.C., Geletkanycz, M.A., & Fredrickson, J.W. (1993). Top executive commitment to the status quo: Some

tests of its determinants. Strategic Management Journal, 14(6), 401–418.

Hayes, R., & Wheelwright, S. (1984). Restoring our Competitive Edge. New York: Collier McMillan.

IPM (1993). Quality: People Management Matters. Institute of Personnel Management. Exter, IPM Research Series,

Short Run Press Ltd.

Jackson, P.R. (2004). Employee commitment to quality: its conceptualisation and measurement. International Journal of

Quality & Reliability Management , 21(7), 714–730.

Juran, J.M. (1986). The quality trilogy: a universal approach to managing for quality. Quality Progress, 19(8), 19–24.

Juran, J.M. (1989). Juran on Leadership for Quality. New York: Free Press.Kanji, G.K. (1995). Quality and statistical concepts. In G.K. Kanji (Ed.). Total Quality Management: Proceedings of the

First World Congress (pp. 3–10). Abingdon: Chapman & Hill.

Kanji, G.K. (1998). Measurement of business excellence. Total Quality Management , 9(7), 633–643.

Kanji Quality Culture (2004). Leadership: The ‘Prime’ for Business Excellence [online]. Available: http://www.gopal-

kanji.com (accessed June 2004).

Kanji Quality Culture (2006), Measuring Business Excellence [Online]. Available: http://www.gopal-kanji.com

(accessed August 2006).

Kearney, A. T. in association with TQM Magazine (1992). Total Quality: Time to Take Off the Rose Tinted Spectacles,

A Report . Kempston: IFS Publications.

Keep, E. (1995). Corporate training strategies: the vital component. In J. Storey (Ed.), New Perspectives on Human

Resource Management (pp. 109–125). London: Routledge.

Kinnie, N. (1995). Human resource management and changes in management control systems. In J. Storey (Ed.), New

Perspectives on Human Resource Management (pp. 137–153). London: Routledge.




Lakhe, R.R., & Mohanty, R.P. (1994). Total quality management: concepts, evolution and acceptability in developing

economies. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management , 11(9), 9 –33.

Legge, K. (1995). Human resource management: a critical analysis. In J. Storey (Ed.), New Perspectives on Human

Resource Management (pp. 19–40). London: Routledge.

Lohrke, F.T., Bedeian, A.G., & Palmer, T.B. (2004). The role of top management teams in formulating and implementing

turnaround strategies: a review and research agenda. International journal of Management Reviews, 5/6 (2), 63–90.Maani, K.E. (1989). Productivity and profitability through quality – myth and reality. International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management , 6 (3), 11–23.

Nessa L’Abbe, W.U. (1991). Philosophy, development and worldwide adaptation of TQM, Productivity, 32(3), 421–426.

Newall, D., & Dale, B.G. (1990). The introduction and development of a quality improvement process: a study.

International Journal of Production Research, 29(9), 1747– 1760.

Oakland, J.S. (1998). Total Quality Management: Text with Cases, 4th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for

future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41– 50.

Powell, T.C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study. Strategic

Management Journal, 16 (1), 15–37.

Quality gurus (2004). [Online] Available: quality gurus: http:// geekswithblogs.net (accessed July 2006).

Reed, R., Lemak, D., & Montgomery, J. (1996). Beyond process: TQM content and firm performance. Academy of

Management Review, 21(1), 173–202.

Reeves, C.A., & Bednar, D.A. (1994). Defining quality: alternatives and implications. Academy of Management Review,

19(3), 419–445.

Roberts, H.V., & Sergesketter, B.F. (1993). Quality is Personal: A Foundation for Total Quality Management .

New York, Free Press.

Rodgers, R., Hunter, J.E., & Rogers, D.L. (1993). Influence of top management commitment on management programme

success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 151–155.

Samson, D., & Terziovski, M. (1999). The relationship between total quality management practices and operational

performance. Journal of Operations Management , 17 (4), 393–409.

Saylor, J.H. (1992). TQM Field Manual. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schonberger, R.J. (1986). World Class Manufacturing. New York: Free Press.

Schwinn, D.R. (2002). Six sigma and more [Online]. Quality e-line, 4(7), 1–2. Available: www.pqsysems.com/eline/

v200207/sixsigmaandmor.htm (accessed: May 2006).

Silvestro, R. (2001). Towards a contingency theory of TQM in services: how implementation varies on the basis of

volume and variety. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management , 18(3), 254–288.

Sitkin, S.B., Sutcliffe, K., & Schroedern, R.G. (1994). Distinguishing control from learning in total quality management:

a contingency perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 537–564.

Smith, S., Transfield, D., Foster, M., & Whittle, S. (1994). Strategies for managing the TQM agenda. International

Journal of Operations & Production Management , 14(1), 75–88.

Soltani, E. (2005). Top management: a threat or an opportunity to TQM? Total Quality Management , 16 (4), 463–476.

Soltani, E., Lai, P., van der Meer, R.B., & Williams, T.M. (2008). Managerial approaches toward service quality: the case

of three service organisations. Service Industries Journal, 28(6), forthcoming.

Soltani, E., van der Meer, R. B., Gennard, J., & Williams, T. (2003). A TQM approach to HR performance evaluation: a

questionnaire survey. European Management Journal, 21(3), 323–337.

Soltani, E., van der Meer, R.B., Gennard, J., & Williams, T. (2004). HR performance evaluation in quality managementcontext: a review of the literature. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management , 21(4), 377–396.

Soltani, E., van der Meer, R., Williams, T.M., & Lai, P. (2006). The compatibility of performance appraisal systems with

TQM principles – evidence from current practice. International Journal of Operations & Production Management ,

26 (1), 92–112.

Sousa, R., & Voss, C.A. (2001). Quality management: universal or context dependent? Production & Operation

Management , 10(4), 383–404.

Sousa, R., & Voss, C.A. (2002). Quality management revisited: a reflective review and agenda for future research.

Journal of Operation Management , 20(1), 91–109.

Storey, J. (1995). Introduction: from personnel management to human resource management. In J. Storey (Ed.), New

Perspectives on Human Resource Management (pp. 1–18). London: Routledge.

Taguchi, G., & Clausing, D. (1990). Robust quality. Harvard Business Review, 68(1), 65–75.

Timperley, S., & Sisson, K. (1990). From manpower planning to human resource planning. In K. Sisson (Ed.), Personnel

Management in Britain (pp. 103–124). London: Blackwell.




Training and Development (1992). The Downside of Quality, 11–12 March, p. 46.

Voss, C. (1995). Alternative paradigms for manufacturing strategy. International Journal of Operations and Production

Management , 15(4), 5 –16.

Waldman, D.A. (1994). The contributions of total quality management to a theory of work performance. Academy of

Management Review, 19(3), 510–536.

Waldman, D.A., Lituchy, T., Gopalakrishnan, M., Laframboise, K., Galperin, B., & Kaltsounakis, Z. (1998).A qualitative analysis of leadership and quality improvement. Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 177–201.

Waldman, D., Javidan M., & Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new application of upper

echelons theory. Leadership Quality, 15, 355–380.

Walton, M. (1986). The Deming Management Method . New York: Pedigree.

Whalen, M.J., & Rahim, M.A. (1994). Common barriers to implementation and development of a TQM programme.

Industrial Management , 36 (2), 19– 21.

Wilkinson, A. (1992). The other side of quality: soft issues and the human resource dimension. Total Quality

Management , 3(3), 323–329.

Wilkinson, A. (1994). Managing human resource for quality, In B.G. Dale (Ed.), Managing Quality, 2nd edn.

(pp. 273–291). Prentice Hall: Hemel Hempstead.

Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., Goodman., J., & Ackers, P. (1992). Total quality management and employee involve-

ment. Human Resource Management Journal, 2(4), 1 –20.

Wilkinson, A., Redman, T., & Snape, E. (1994). The problems with quality management: the views of managers. Total

Quality Management , 5(6), 397–404.

Wilkinson, A., Redman, T., Snape, E., & Marchington, M. (1998). Managing with Total Quality Management: Theory

and Practice. London: Macmillan.

Williams, R., Wiele, T. v. d., Iwaarden, J. v., & Visser, R. (2004). TQM: why it will again become a top management

issue. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management , 21(6), 603–611.

Wolford, G.R. (1991). A CEO’s ‘perspective of TQM’. Frontiers of Health Services Management , 7 (4), 51–54.

Yeung, V.W.S., & Armstrong, R.W. (2003). A key to TQM benefits: manager involvement in customer processes.

International Journal of Services Technology and Management , 4(1), 14– 29.

Zairi, M. (2002). Total quality management sustainability: what it means and how to make it viable. International

Journal of Quality & Reliability Management , 19(5), 502–507.

Zhang, Z. (2000). Developing a model of quality management methods and evaluating their effects on business

performance. Total Quality Management , 11(1), 129–37.


TQM Review

Documents