Total Quality Management: A Critical Review

Atif Hussain and Iftikhar Malik

[This article is a synthesis of six seminal articles published on Total Quality Management
between 1994 and 2002. Articles are referred at the end]

TQM has become a wide spread phenomenon (Spencer, 1994; Wilkinson and Willmott, 1996;
Yong and Wilkinson, 1999). Three quarters of companies in USA and UK have reported to
have some sort of QM initiative in place (Sousa and Voss, 2002). It has become an almost of a
social movement (Hackman and Wageman, 1995). Yong and Wilkinson (1999) believe that
reason behind such wholesale adoption of TQM by business organizations is competitive
pressure i.e., in an increasingly competitive business world, organization are under immense
pressure to improve their efficiency in order to survive and thrive. However, Wilkinson and
Willmott (1996) have pointed out that general politico-economic trends of 80s that established
sovereignty of individuals as customers also contributed to the rise of TQM.
Despite such popularity of TQM, a debate is still going on whether it is a unique philosophy or
not (Hackman and Wageman, 1995; Boaden, 1996; Yong and Wilkinson, 1999). Some writers

assert that it a historically unique approach but others insist that it is merely a fad (Hackman
and Wageman, 1995) which is dying (Yong and Wilkinson, 1999). Some advocates of TQM
follow it like a religion (Yong and Wilkinson, 1999). They are not ready to refer to previous
management literature or, indeed, to reference anything outside the quality management field
(Wilkinson and Willmott, 1996). But some authors argue that although TQM is not a fad as it
is here to stay (Sousa and Voss, 2002) and not dying, its components are not unique (Boaden,
1996). Spencer (1994) has shown that it shares many things in common with previous
management theories and is not a revolutionary or unique idea. It is just a comprehensive
assortment of concepts from various management theories. Similarly, Boaden (1996) asserts
that it has a lot in common with other recent initiatives such as World Class Manufacturing
(WCM), Guru Theory, Continuous Improvement (CI), Business Process Re-engineering (BPR)
and Human Resource Management (HRM) etc. In Boadens words at best TQM is an
alternative focus on a common set of management principles, derived from a statistical base,
and at worst simply another management fad (Boaden, 1996).
It is also not clear what quality and TQM exactly mean and entail. There is no agreed upon
definition of quality (Sousa and Voss, 2002) and TQM

may also mean different things to

different people (Hackman and Wageman, 1995; Yong and Wilkinson, 1999; Sousa and Voss,
2002). Historically, TQM concepts have been developed by practitioners and gurus like
Deming, Juran, Ishikawa and Feigenbaum (Hackman and Wageman, 1995; Yong and

Wilkinson, 1999) who also differed with each other on some points (Yong and Wilkinson,
1999). However, some authors like Sousa and Voss (2002) assert that there is substantial
agreement on the set of constructs classified under the umbrella of TQM. Process
management, reducing variability, factual approach of management and continuous
improvement are four core principles. TQM authorities also agree on the following
interventions: identification and measurement of customer requirements, partnership with
suppliers, use of cross-functional teams, scientific monitoring of performance (control charts
etc.), use of process management techniques such as process flow charts (Hackman and
Wageman, 1995).
Effectiveness of TQM is also a matter of debate. At least one MBNA winner has filed
bankruptcy and one Deming Prize winner has dismantled its TQM program in USA . Some
studies report as high as 80% failure rate of TQM initiatives but credibility of such studies is
not beyond question (Yong and Wilkinson, 1999). It is noteworthy that some studies have
reported high success ratio and positive effects of TQM on organizational performance as well.
Empirical evidence is available that quality practices do enhance operational performance
significantly and business performance positively if not always strongly (Boaden, 1996; Yong
and Wilkinson, 1999). Astounding success of Japanese companies also makes a very powerful
case for TQM (Yong and Wilkinson, 1999).

Theoretically speaking, TQM can improve performance by reducing waste and process
variability which cannot only promotes internal efficiency by decreasing waste but can also
result in higher market share and profits by increasing customer satisfaction (Sousa and
Voss, 2002). But there is evidence that some non-TQM organizations are also successful (Yong
and Wilkinson, 1999). In fact, as Hackman and Wageman (1995) have noted, measuring TQM
implementation and its effects is very hard. Problems associated with standard indices of
performance, exogenous disturbances, and temporal issues make it hard to establish link
between TQM and performance (Hackman and Wageman, 1995).
There are also some problems associated with implementation of TQM which have extensively
been documented by researchers (Sousa and Voss, 2002). According to Yong and Wilkinson
(1999) these problems include lack of leadership, lack of vision, lack of time, lack of action
and consistency, resistance of middle managers, fear of frontline employees, culture, values
and attitudes, barriers between departments, labor turnover, cultural issues, barriers created
by quality certifications, short termism and piecemeal approach of implementation . Short
termism and piecemeal approach are especially unhelpful as unless implemented in full and
for the long term TQM is unlikely to bear fruit (Yong and Wilkinson, 1999).
In the conclusion, in can be said that although not as unique as some of its advocates insist it
is, TQM is certainly not a fad. It has roots in classical management theory and has at least
made one worthwhile contribution to the same by showing that seemingly opposing ideas can

be integrated into a unified whole (Spencer, 1994). However, more research effort needs to be
directed towards studying its implementation issues and effects on performance.

References
570.

Boaden, R. J. (1996). Is total quality management really unique? Total Quality Management, 7(5), 553-

Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical, conceptual, and
practical issues. Administrative science quarterly, 309-342.
Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2002). Quality management re-visited: a reflective review and agenda for
future research. Journal of operations management,20(1), 91-109.
Spencer, B. A. (1994). Models of organization and total quality management: a comparison and critical
evaluation. Academy of management review, 19(3), 446-471.
Wilkinson, A., & Willmott, H. (1996). Quality management, problems and pitfalls: a critical
perspective. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 13(2), 55-65.
Yong, J., & Wilkinson, A. (1999). The state of total quality management: a review. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 10(1), 137-161.