Introduction
This post follows Goetsch & Davis (2021)’s presentation of total quality management (TQM), focusing on its definition and common errors in implementing TQM. Next we look at two limitations of TQM given in a video by "megentlemen." The post concludes with recommendations about TQM implementation.
Definition and Characteristics of TQM
Total quality management (TQM) is a management approach that has the goal of achieving long term success through customer satisfaction. This is done by involving all members of an organization in a continuous effort to improve processes, services, products, and corporate culture. TQM strives to improve efficiency, reduce waste, and require consistent quality in company operations; crucial to achieving this is customer focus, continuous improvement, employee involvement, process-oriented thinking, and using all available data for decision making.
To understand this, we must first understand the concepts of “quality” and “total quality.” Goetsch & Davis (p. 3) give the following definition of the first concept: "Quality is a dynamic state associated with products, services, people, processes, and environments that meets or exceeds expectations and helps produce superior value." Expanding on this, they note that as standards change, what is viewed as a quality item (product, service, person, process, or environment) also changes, and that items must meet or exceed expectations (whose expectations?) and help produce superior value (for whom?). Superior value is unpacked as having three basic elements: "superior quality, superior cost, and superior service" (Goetsch & Davis, p. 3)
Total quality is the process of continually improving quality of products, processes, services, and costs. TQM is a management philosophy that achieves this process. Total quality is a competitive advantage, especially for companies operating globally.
Goetsch & Davis (p. 4) describes TQM using a graphic analogy involving a three-legged stool. The seat of the tool is labeled “customer focus,” and this represents the fact the customer is in the driver’s seat. Supporting this are the three legs of the stool: measures, people, and processes. Quality can and must be measured using statistical process control, benchmarking, and quality control tools. People are empowered to do their jobs the right way. Process is one of continual improvement. "'Good enough' is never good enough" (Goetsch & Davis, p. 4). To be more specific,
The distinctive characteristics of total quality are these: strategically based, customer focus (internal and external), obsession with quality, use of the scientific approach in decision making and problem solving, long-term commitment, teamwork, continual process improvement, bottom-up education and training, freedom through control, unity of purpose, and employee involvement and empowerment, all deliberately aimed at supporting the organizational strategy. (Goetsch & Davis, p. 4)
Notice the Orwellian phrasing here: “freedom through control”, “unity of purpose”, “'Good enough' is never good enough.” Along with this is the “scientific approach in decision making and problem solving,” which smacks of Taylorism (Nyland, 2024).
Implementation Errors
As can be expected, implementing TQM in an established company or organization is not a bloodless and pain-free affair. Goetsch & Davis identify five common errors (Goetsch & Davis, p. 13-14).
The first error is senior management delegation and poor leadership – this happens when senior management delegates the switch-over to TQM to a hired expert, as opposed to applying leadership to get all employees involved. Hired experts are still allowed in training or advisory roles.
Second is what Goetsch & Davis call “team mania.” This is the idea that for teams to be effective, there must be teamwork: “Supervisors must learn how to be effective coaches, and employees must learn how to be team players.” (Goetsch & Davis, p. 13)
Third, the deployment process can be done erroneously. TQM must be deployed in an all-or-nothing approach, and must be adopted by operations, budgeting, marketing, and all other departments.
When adopting TQM, some organizations assume that major proponents (Deming, Juran, Crosby, etc.) must be followed literally. Instead, TQM programs must be tailored to individual needs of the organization, and failure to do so is the fourth error.
Finally, there is confusion between TQM education and awareness vs inspiration and skill building. Knowing the goals and methods of TQM are different from being inspired by the concept and seeking out relevant training to be “part of the transformational process” (Goetsch & Davis, p. 14).
Limits in Implementation
There are (at least) two limitations of TQM implementation, described in the video (megentlemen, n/d): the cost of adopting TQM in time and money, and the fear of change.
Implementing TQM is a lengthy process, taking many years and requiring substantial training. Overall, it is an expensive and exhausting process. In terms of length-of-implementation, Goetsch & Davis present management-by-accounting as a kind of opposite to TQM, stating that TQM is a long-term concept whereas management-by-accounting is a short-term concept that leads to short-term strategies (Goetsch & Davis, p. 29).
The second limitation is the idea that fear of change, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) are major roadblocks to implementing TQM. This places the blame for unsuccessful or difficult adoption of TQM on those attempting to use the system, not on TQM itself. The FUD excuse comes off as a description of why pyramid schemes fail, or why socialism fails (“socialism needs a better class of people”).
These two limitations should not be taken in isolation – to get people who don’t have FUD over TQM, it is necessary to “age out” those who do. Fortunately, implementing TQM is a lengthy process.
Recommendations
As a person who experienced a flawless and professional implementation of TQM by a former employer, I cannot recommend TQM be implemented in my place of work. Further, I would not recommend TQM even to my competitors. The reasons for this are as follows: the cultural assumptions of TQM, the inflated bureaucracy, the emphasis on process over innovation, problems with responsibility and authority, the conflation of leadership with management, and the "sacred cow" problem all make TQM antithetical to companies whose existance requires that they be innovative and "scrappy."
References
Goetsch, D. L. & Davis, S. B. (2021). Quality management for organizational excellence: Introduction to total quality (9th ed.). Pearson.
megentlemen. (n/d). busi616_Total Quality Management. https://libertyuniversity.instructure.com/courses/812038/pages/watch-total-quality-management?module_item_id=87787197
Nyland, C. (2024, 24 March). Writing Red Taylorism into management history. Journal of Industrial Relations, 66(3), 484-504. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221856241238611
No comments:
Post a Comment