TQM for Small Businesses

Is total quality management (TQM) applicable to small and medium-sized businesses? Consider for example a local hardware store where returned items (like a defective drill) are resold. The consequences are frustrated customers, incorrect stock levels, and leading to business failure. A TQM solution to this problem is to develop a checklist for classifying returns as either fit-for-resale or return-to-manufacturer. In addition, employees would require hands-on-training on how to use that checklist and take appropriate action on the returned item. This would then be codified into a standard operating procedure (SOP).

Does this solution count as a valid TQM solution? Yes and no.

It meets many of the conditions given by (Goetsch & Davis, 2020, p. 4): it is customer-focused, obsessed with quality, involves bottom-up training, teamwork, and employee involvement. There isn’t enough information to determine whether this supports the company’s strategy, however, as no explicit strategy was given. It is not clear how continual improvement is possible in the process of handling customer returns.

One implementation error is that everybody is not included (Goetsch & Davis, 2020, p. 13-14). TQM implementation is an all-or-nothing process, and the SOP wouldn’t terribly impact the company accountant, of course, but the accountant must take part. Who specifies an improved accounting process, and how is it tested?

Two problems with the SOP are the induced bureaucracy and required training. These problems are not specific to the example hardware store, but are endemic to TQM.

Bureaucracy – in the form of red tape, complex regulations, and administrative burdens – is the death knell of small businesses. The red tape and administrative burdens drain time, money, and people from productive purposes.

Training would require time and the efforts of at least one person acting a trainer. Of course the training would have to be repeated whenever a new employee is hired.

Here’s a small example of what TQM training looks like. The once-large software company for which I used to work was converting to TQM, which required training in TQM itself. When discussing the importance of processes, the instructor had us do the following exercise:

We were divided into groups of three, and given a pile of 10-20 pennies, all heads-up. The first person in the group was to flip all the pennies over (tails up) and pass the pennies to the second person. The second person was to flip the pennies over again (heads up) and pass the pennies to the third person. That was the process.

I asked the instructor something to the effect of “why not just slide the pennies from person 1 directly to person 3 without flipping them over. The result is the same.” His response was something like “that’s not the process.”

References

Baldacchino, G. (1995, March). Total quality management in a luxury hotel: A critique of practice. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(1), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4319(95)00006-X

Goetsch, D. L. & Davis, S. B. (2021). Quality management for organizational excellence: Introduction to total quality (9th ed.). Pearson.

Manley, S. C., Williams Jr, R. I., & Hair Jr, J. F. (2024). Enhancing TQM’s effect on small business performance: A PLS-SEM exploratory study of TQM applied with a comprehensive strategic approach. TQM Journal, 36(5), 1252-1272. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-10-2021-0299

Cultural Assumptions of TQM

One aspect of total quality management (TQM) that doesn’t seem to be addressed is the cultural assumptions made by its proponents. By this I don’t mean the quality-focused culture, or the corporate culture that TQM seeks to replace (or at least modify). Instead, I mean national culture.

Both W. Edwards Deming (1900-1993) and Joseph M. Juran (1904-2008) developed their managerial theories over their entire lifespans, based on their experience working at Western Electric and for the U.S. Government, but it was in post-war Japan that they had their first opportunities to implement their theories.

Much later (in the 1980s) did American industrialists begin requesting the services of Deming. According to Goetsch & Davis (2021, p. 12), Deming was not received as warmly by Americans as he was by the Japanese. In fact, “Deming’s attitude toward corporate executives in the United States can be described as cantankerous at best.”

How much of Deming and Juran’s theories of management hinge on their experience in post-war Japan? Japanese culture has a reputation for being hierarchical which implies deference. According to Chara Scroope (2025):

Japanese society is generally collectivistic, whereby people often view themselves and others as members of a collective unit or group (whether it be uchi or soto groups, a family group or a broader social group). In this sense, members of a group hold collective responsibility (rentai sekinin) for the performance and actions of an individual. For instance, if one or a few members of the group indulge in poor behaviour, all others are collectively blamed. In turn, harmony (wa) is an important part of interpersonal relationships. As a cultural concept, harmony implies a sense of unity and conformity within a group, whereby interdependence may be emphasised over independence.

At the time Deming and Juran were teaching the Japanese about TQM, Japan had just lost World War II. They were a beaten people, an occupied nation. In fact, Deming's first visit to Japan was in July 1950, and the Allied occupation wouldn't end until 8 September 1951. Emperor Hirohito, their leader throughout the war, was considered divine in Japanese culture. Following Japan's surrender in World War II, the U.S. pressured Hirohito to renounce his divinity.

This is diametrically opposite to American culture, where rugged individualism reigns. The self-made man is an American invention, and our freedom and independence follow from this.

Does it even make sense to apply a management philosophy to Americans that was developed and tested on a culture so different from ours?

References

Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. B. (2021). Quality management for organizational excellence: Introduction to total quality (9^th ed.). Pearson.

Scroope, C. (2025). Japanese Culture – Core Concepts. Cultural Atlas. https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/japanese-culture/japanese-culture-core-concepts

Contrasting Deming and Juran

Introduction

W. Edwards Deming (1900-1993) and Joseph M. Juran (1904-2008) were early proponents of quality driven management, and their theories of total quality management (TQM) are quite similar. In this paper, two ways that they differ are considered: their definitions of quality and the organizational scope needed to implement TQM. The implications of these differences are traced, and the value these differences have to TQM as a whole are described.

Defining Quality

One difference between Deming and Juran are their definitions of quality. If we take (Goetsch & Davis, 2021, p. 3) as reflecting Deming’s definition, then "[Q]uality is a dynamic state associated with products, services, people, processes, and environments that meets or exceeds expectations and helps produce superior value." This statement doesn’t specify whose expectations are met or exceeded, but it could be those of management.

In contrast to this, Juran considered quality to mean “fitness for use” for customer needs (Godfrey & Kinett, 2007). As such, Juran understood that with quality initiatives, a company could reach a point of diminishing returns. The phrase “’Good enough’ is never good enough” would thus be more applicable to Deming, whereas Juran understood that technical improvements can be more costly than the revenue they return.

Organizational Scope

A phrase attributed to Juran is that "all improvement takes place project by project." Without knowing the exact source and the full context, it is not clear exactly what is meant. Joseph DeFeo, who is a Juran Institute advisor, notes that Juran wrote:

If an organization wants to have quality leadership (like Toyota at the time) they must create a habit of continuous breakthroughs (not small improvements but large ones). To do that one must organize for those improvements, project by project. (DeFeo, 2022)

DeFeo also notes that such a project must be approved by management to secure budgets, personnel, and facilities. Thus are the advantages of managerial legitimacy.

Can this be taken as contrary to TQM’s all-or-nothing approach? Again, without knowing the source or context, it is difficult to tell. Assuming that it is, then improvement can be implemented on a team-by-team basis, and so adopting total quality management can be completed in a reasonable amount of time in a cost-effective manner.

Compare this with the Deming Cycle, which seeks to “link the production of a product with consumer needs and focus the resources of all departments (research, design, production, marketing) in a cooperative effort to meet those needs.” (Godfrey & Kinett, 2007, p.9) This is accomplished through five steps: consumer research (plan), create a product (do), check that the product was made in accordance to plan (check), market the product (act), analyze how the product performed in the marketplace in terms of cost, quality, and so on.

By advocating for a project-by-project basis, Juran makes it unnecessary to involve many members from outside a team, thus limiting bureaucratic creep.

Analysis of the Differences

There are doubtless other differences between Deming and Juran, but differing definitions of quality and organizational scope alone show some of the problems with TQM and how Juran can solve them.

First, TQM has a well-deserved reputation for inflating bureaucracy. This can be seen in the Deming Cycle where making or improving a product would require the collective efforts of the research, design, production, and marketing departments. Instead of requiring the work of a single team, Deming would require four whole departments.

TQM also favors process over innovation. In the Deming cycle, innovation is driven through two sources. First is consumer research – the customer wants a product and Deming will unleash four departments to produce it. Second, innovation is driven by the competitors, which is never a good thing! The Deming cycle doesn’t consider the possibility of “market surprise” products like the iPhone, for example. When the iPhone 1 was released on 29 June 2007, some people were already using mobile phones, but the iPhone created a new, larger market: the smartphone market. Competitors like Palm and Blackberry were still waiting for their customers to tell them what to make; Apple showed the customers what they could purchase. This point is also missed by the Juran Institute (DeFeo, 2017).

Conclusion

TQM is a broad theory that requires any organization adopting it to potentially undergo major changes in organization and culture. The characteristics of TQM given in (Goetsch & Davis, 2020, p. 4) – strategically based, customer focused, continual process improvement, freedom through control, and so on – are either not clearly defined or are somewhat overlapping. It makes sense that instead of throwing out “customer focus” along with “freedom through control”, we could save the reasonable parts and reject the highly questionable parts. Comparing Deming with Juran shows that this may be possible, that TQM can be modified to make it highly practical.

 

References

DeFeo, J. (2017, 18 April). Tired of Running from the Competition? Fulfill the Customer Needs. Juran Institute. https://www.juran.com/blog/tired-of-running-from-competition/

DeFeo, J. (2022, 28 October). Project by Project Improvement Revisited. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/project-improvement-revisited-dr-joseph-a-defeo/

Godfrey, A. & Kinett, R. (2007). Joseph M. Juran, a Perspective on Past Contributions and Future Impact. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 23, 653-663. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.861

Goetsch, D. L. & Davis, S. B. (2021). Quality management for organizational excellence: Introduction to total quality (9^th ed.). Pearson.

What is Total Quality Management?

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 (9^th 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

Process Benchmarking

Introduction

In this discussion post, process benchmarking is defined, and it is compared with seemingly related concepts as well as other types of benchmarking. The application of benchmarking in the information technology (IT) industry is discussed, and then it is applied to a fictitious software company. Finally, it is noted that while all companies and organizations can benefit from benchmarking, contemporary industrial manufacturing (Industry 4.0) companies can especially benefit from it, due to Industry 4.0’s similarity to the IT industry.

What is Process Benchmarking?

Goetsch & Davis (2021) define benchmarking, specifically process benchmarking, as “the process of comparing and measuring an organization’s operations or its internal processes against those of a best-in-class performer from inside or outside its industry.” (p. 360)

This is different from competitive analysis, which is what customers do. Benchmarking is not about comparing the final product or service of two companies. Rather, benchmarking involves comparing the underlying processes used to produce a product or service, distribute it, and support it. The goal is to find a “secret sauce” another company uses and adopt that to one’s own company. That other company is called a benchmarking partner. If possible, the benchmarking partner should be “best-in-class,” at least in the particular process under comparison.

Benchmarking should also not be confused with so-called “best practices.” In software development, best practices are frequently arbitrary constraints not backed by any measurement. Best practices’ popularity is simply based on the insecurities that many IT employees and managers have.

Yarrow & Prabhu (1999) present three different modes of benchmarking: metric benchmarking, diagnostic benchmarking, and process benchmarking. The first concerns comparisons of performance data. They state:

So long as we are comparing `apples with apples’, metric benchmarking can serve a useful purpose as a `call to action’. However, its emphasis is on the `what’ rather than the `how’. This form of benchmarking can help an organization to pinpoint aspects of performance that need to improve, but on its own it cannot help them to learn how to improve. (Yarrow & Prabhu, 1999, p. 794)

Process benchmarking “involves two or more organizations comparing their practices in a specific area of activity, in depth, to learn how better results can be achieved.”

The third approach, diagnostic benchmarking, “seeks to explore both practices and performance, establishing not only which of the company’s results areas are relatively weak, but also which practices exhibit room for improvement.”

Benchmarking in IT Departments

In large companies with multiple independent software products, it is possible for different product teams to become benchmarking partners, if one of the teams has some metric that is significantly better than the other team’s. Even then, benchmarking with other companies could still be needed to achieve best-in-class quality.

Companies or organizations which have IT departments (which means all companies and organizations) all have certain problems in common. These problems include: what is the best database to use? What is the best way to test software? What is the best way to make websites publicly available? What is the best way to secure a computer system? and so on.

Because of this, it is possible to have benchmarking partners from widely varying industries.

The solutions to these problems are exchanged on an informal basis. IT workers frequently participate in user groups, either in-person or online. There are also online forums, product-specific support groups, etc., that can be used as sources of information.

Information gained through user groups or forums is purely anecdotal. Once this (unverified) solution to a problem is found, it must be evaluated and reviewed. This usually starts with a competitive analysis. Once it is determined that the proposed solution should indeed solve the specified problem, the solution will be implemented on a trial basis. If the trial is successful, the solution will be deployed on a wider basis. This process is called A/B testing.

Benchmarking in a Fictitious Organization

Software companies like Gaggle dot Com often find that there are two different ways to improve some aspect of a company’s IT department. To be concrete, suppose a certain database’s performance has been subpar. This can be improved by either changing some configuration property of the database or by replacing the database with one made by a different vendor.

By reading documentation and the forums of the database vendor, a configuration change may be found that improves the database’s performance. Or the problem can be described in a forum post along with a request for help. This is not benchmarking, however – it is more like self-improvement.

Real benchmarking would happen when Gaggle dot Com finds a benchmarking partner, say at a conference or user group meeting. This would be an informal and ad hoc relationship and would be the situation when a replacement database can be recommended. This is again anecdotal evidence, and it must be verified using A/B testing as described above.

In situations like this, a metric comparison with the benchmarking partner does not make sense simply because the entire processes (database plus everything else) are too dissimilar, like apples-to-oranges.

There are two quantitative comparisons that can be made, however. The first is to compare the performance of the database, acting alone, used at Gaggle.com and the benchmarking partner. In the classification that Yarrow & Prabhu (1999) present, this would be process benchmarking, where the “process” is strictly limited to the database.

The second comparison involves measuring the performance of Gaggle.com’s entire system both with the old database and with the new database in place. This is what Yarrow & Prabhu would call diagnostic benchmarking. As Yarrow & Prabhu (1999, p. 794) note, “diagnostic benchmarking is more akin to a `health check’ for the company, helping to identify which practices need to be changed and the nature and extent of performance improvements which should follow.”

In using either process or diagnostic benchmarking, Gaggle dot Com om has improved its database performance, perhaps even exceeding that of the benchmarking partner, and so have delivered a higher quality service to our customers.

Conclusion

The approach to benchmarking described here – combining process and diagnostic benchmarking – is not limited to the IT industry. As Wolniak & Grebski (2023) notes, any company can benefit from competitive benchmarking. In particular, Industry 4.0 is a transformation of traditional manufacturing processes using digital technologies, data exchange, and automation. As such, Industry 4.0 companies share the tools of IT companies, and the process and diagnostic benchmarking should be applied there, too.

References

Goetsch, D. L. & Davis, S. B. (2021). Quality management for organizational excellence: Introduction to total quality (9^th ed.). Pearson.

Wolniak, R., & Grebski, W. (2023). The usage of benchmarking in Industry 4.0 conditions. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej. Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 188, 665-676. http://dx.doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2023.188.40

Yarrow, D. & Prabhu, V. (1999). Collaborating to compete: Benchmarking through regional partnerships. Total Quality Management, 10(4-5), 793-802. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954412997820

The Problems with Ghost Soldiers

Unethical behavior in the military is criminal, financially ruinous, wastes time through endless training programs, and undermines the "integrity" part of JJDIDTIEBUCKLE. It also degrades readiness and lethality. The most glaring example of how unethical behavior and corruption undermines the operational capability of a military force was the problem of the “ghost soldiers” of the Afghan National Army.

The Afghan National Army (ANA) was created by President Hamid Karzai in December 2001, following the US invasion on 7 October 2001. The ANA was intended to provide security, combat the Taliban insurgency, and support the government's stability. Training for the ANA was split between various NATO countries, including the US, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

U.S. Army Sgt. Kevon Campbell uses a Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment to check the identity of an Afghan villager in southern Ghazni province, Afghanistan, 8 April 2012. Photo by Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod.

The US was the primary source of funding for the ANA, totaling over $88 billion dollars from 2002 to 2021. The size of the ANA in 2019 was approximately 195,000 soldiers but faced the problems of high desertion rates (around 25% in 2009) and high illiteracy rates (approximately 90%).

“Ghost soldiers” were an ongoing problem for the ANA. These were either deserters, deceased individuals, or completely fictitious troops, whose continued presence on the rosters allowed corrupt commanders and other officials to embezzle their salaries and their equipment.

Similar problems existed in the Afghan National Police (ANP) as well as in the education department. One report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) noted that there were not only ghost students but also thousands of ghost teachers and even hundreds of ghost schools. (Sopko, 2017, p. 4-5)

According to the 30 April 2016 report from SIGAR, “neither the United States nor its Afghan allies know how many Afghan soldiers and police actually exist, how many are in fact available for duty, or, by extension, the true nature of their operational capabilities.” (Sopko, 2016, p. 66)

To solve this problem, the U.S. government instituted a biometric ID system starting in 2005. In 2006, a defense contractor named Viisage was granted $10 million to manufacture a device called the Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment (HIIDE), and by 2007 the device was used in Afghanistan to eliminate ghost soldiers (Atherton, 2022).

The data collected through HIIDE and paperwork such as enlistment applications captured not only a recruit’s name and date/place of birth, but also “details on the individuals’ military specialty and career trajectory, as well as sensitive relational data such as the names of their father, uncles, and grandfathers, as well as the names of the two tribal elders per recruit who served as guarantors for their enlistment” (Guo & Noori, 2021)

All this information was stored in a database called the Afghan Personnel and Pay System (APPS). Used by both the Afghan Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Defense to pay the members of the ANA and ANP, it grew to contain information on half a million members of the army and police forces.

U.S. forces in Afghanistan not only wanted this biometric system to eliminate ghost soldiers but also to identify enemies. “Knowing who belongs in a village—who they are, what they do, to whom they are related, and where they live — all helps to separate the locals from the insurgents” (Branson, 2011, p. 23).

According to (Guo & Noori, 2021), the database came with no deletion or data retention policy, even for extreme contingencies. Such as national takeover by the Taliban.

Even before the American withdrawal in August 2021, the system’s security was compromised. For example, in a series of kidnappings in May 2016, the Taliban captured between over 200 people traveling on the Kunduz-Takhar highway. While being held in a nearby mosque, HIIDE was used on the prisoners, and 20 were killed for being members of the army or police. (TOLOnews, 2016)

When the biometric identification system was used for its intended purpose, it produced staggering results. For example, in 2019 there was a purge of 42,000 ghost soldiers due to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANSDF) switching “to counting only troops validated as existing by biometrics, rather than relying on the numbers reported by field commanders.” (Sisk, 2019)

This purge emphasized the extent that ANSDF commanders were inflating their ranks, and it corroborated findings by SIGAR as well particular instances reported by Helmand’s provincial council. In 2016, for example, in Helmand Province, 40% of the listed troops were nonexistent, with one base of 100 soldiers having only 50 present and another of 300 having just 15 during an attack (Rasmussen, 2016). The purge of 42,000 ghost soldiers showed that the ANA was a far smaller force in reality than on paper.

The rapid takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban in August 2021 was made possible by these inflated numbers. Khalid Payenda, the former finance minister of Afghanistan, stated that “most of the 300,000 troops and police on the government's books did not exist,” and that the numbers may have been inflated more than six times. (BBC, 2021)

The U.S. no longer controls Afghanistan, and there is a real possibility of reprisals by the Taliban against members of the ANSDF. APPS and HIIDE are supposedly secure, but the Afghan government was introducing its own biometrics ID system when it fell. Their system included ANSDF membership information, and there is some evidence that the Taliban have access to it. (Roy, 2021).

In conclusion, unethical behavior and corruption can lead to combat ineffectiveness even to the point of losing a war. The ongoing problems of biometrics systems under Taliban control show that timid leadership and half-hearted solutions rarely achieve solutions.

 

Bibliography

Atherton, K. (2022, 9 February). The enduring risks posed by biometric identification systems. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-enduring-risks-posed-by-biometric-identification-systems/

BBC. (2021, 10 November). Afghanistan's ghost soldiers undermined fight against Taliban - ex-official. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59230564

Branson, D. (2011, April). The Commander’s Guide to Biometrics in Afghanistan. CJIATF 435. https://info.publicintelligence.net/CALL-AfghanBiometrics.pdf

Guo, E. & Noori, H. (2021, 30 August). This is the real story of the Afghan biometric databases abandoned to the Taliban. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/30/1033941/afghanistan-biometric-databases-us-military-40-data-points/

Rasmussen, S. (2016, 17 May). Afghanistan's 'ghost soldiers': thousands enlisted to fight Taliban don't exist. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/17/afghanistan-ghost-soldiers-taliban-babaji

Roy, S. (2021, 26 November). Neo-Taliban Turns Digital: A Reconquest Strategy. The Geopolitics. https://thegeopolitics.com/neo-taliban-turns-digital-a-reconquest-strategy/

Sisk, R. (2019, 2 August). Afghanistan Loses 42,000 Troops in Crackdown on 'Ghost Soldiers'. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/08/02/afghanistan-loses-42000-troops-crackdown-ghost-soldiers.html

Sopko, J. (2016, 30 April). Quarterly Report to the United States Congress. SIGAR-2016-04-30QR. https://www.sigar.mil/Portals/147/Files/Reports/Quarterly-Reports/2016-04-30qr.pdf

Sopko, J. (2017, 28 March). Schools in Balkh Province: Observations from Site Visits at 26 Schools. SIGAR-17-32-SP. https://www.sigar.mil/Portals/147/Files/Reports/Special-Projects/Special-Projects-Review/SIGAR-17-32-SP.pdf

TOLOnews. (5 June 2016). Taliban Used Biometric System During Kunduz Kidnapping. https://tolonews.com/afghanistan/taliban-used-biometric-system-during-kunduz-kidnapping

China Flu Corruption

I was recently involved in a discussion about corruption during COVID-19. Here's my response.

Tom Wolf, the governor of Pennsylvania during the time of the plague, decided to shut down all "nonessential" businesses. Governor Wolfe's family owned a cabinetry business that, mysteriously, was deemed essential and was not closed. (Couloumbis & Mahon, 2021)

A second incident was that COVID-positive patients were placed in elder-care facilities (old-age homes). PA's secretary of health, Richard Levine, also known as Rachel Levine (pronouns are he/she) was behind this decision. His own mother was in one of those elder-care facilities, and he decided to move her into a hotel before placing COVID-positive patients there (McKelvey, 2021). Meanwhile, people in the elder-care homes or in hospitals were not allowed visits from their family members.

Another incident was that Walmart stores (or at least the ones closest to me) closed-off their home gardening centers. All the small gardening stores were deemed nonessential, so this was one of the few businesses carrying seeds and fertilizer, and they stopped selling those products.

A fourth incident came with the vaccine mandate, under which many active-duty military personnel were discharged, and many employees were dismissed from their jobs. I fell into the latter category, even though I was working 100% remote. They must have thought that COVID-19 can be spread over Zoom calls!

Fortunately for the veterans, this policy has been reversed, and all members of the active or reserve military who were discharged for refusing the vaccine were reinstated with former rank and full back pay and benefits (The White House, 2025). Unfortunately for civilians, the Supreme Court ruled that the vaccine mandate was unconstitutional for most professions (Mello, 2022), but didn’t leave a means of redress for those who were terminated.

Besides violations of the freedom of assembly there were also numerous violations of the freedom of religion. One notable example occurred on Easter 2020 in Louisville, Kentucky, when a church was operating a “drive-in church service in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control’s social distancing guidelines.” Louisville’s mayor wanted to shut down all Easter services, but a temporary restraining order came through on Holy Saturday allowing services to continue. (Snedeker, 2025)

Consider the situation: there were the store closures, mask mandates, the toilet paper famine, stores shifting from cash to credit card, and the fiery but mostly peaceful protests. We had state governments closing church services. Now we have stores interfering with people's right to grow their own food - that was a loud alarm.

Some of us refused to wear masks even from day one, and several of us formed anti-masking groups and began shopping – who would imagine that shopping could be an act of civil disobedience! We started forming bonds based on shared beliefs and shared experiences.

The people with whom I usually associate are either active duty military or veterans. Those individuals are mostly preppers or survivalists, so the toilet paper famine didn't affect us. I still maintain my bonds with them, but the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers are a different breed. I started raising my standards of what constitutes valid and effective responses to government overreach due to them.

If anything can be said about corruption during COVID, it is that it demonstrated how eager agencies whose primary purpose is not law-enforcement, such as businesses or the military, were willing to play along, either as enforcers or as propagandists (Tales from SYL Ranch DARKROOM, 2021). From events early in my life I knew that universities were more than willing to pin a sheriff’s badge on their chests, but COVID made me understand that the rot – the willingness to be unethical and corrupt – is far more systemic and widespread.

Can’t wait for somebody to say that I should forgive and forget. My response will be: “I’m not Jesus and I don’t have alzheimer's.”

 

Bibliography

Couloumbis, A. & Mahon, E. (30 March 2020). Gov. Tom Wolf’s former business keeps operating during coronavirus shutdown despite losing state waiver. Spotlight PA. https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2020/03/pennsylvania-coronavirus-life-sustaining-wolf-home-products-waiver/

McKelvey, W. (2021, 24 February). Health Secretary Rachel Levine’s removal of mom from care home amid epidemic draws scrutiny. Penn Live. https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/05/health-secretary-rachel-levines-removal-of-mom-from-care-home-amid-epidemic-draws-scrutiny.html

Mello, M. et al. (2022, 20 January). A Look at the Supreme Court Ruling in Vaccination Mandates. Legal Aggregate. Stanford Law School. https://law.stanford.edu/2022/01/20/a-look-at-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-vaccination-mandates/

Snedeker, G. (2025, 26 March). COVID Closure of Churches. New Civil Liberties Alliance. https://nclalegal.org/covid-closure-of-churches/

Tales From SYL Ranch DARKROOM. (2021, 29 September). Stephen Colbert's Vomit-Inducing "The Vax-Scene" (Remastered to 4K/60fps) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq76QSlRiPo

The White House. (2025, 27 January). Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Reinstates Service Members Discharged for Refusing the COVID Vaccine. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-reinstates-service-members-discharged-for-refusing-the-covid-vaccine/