2the Application of TQM

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
The application of TQM: organic or mechanistic?

Brad Moore Alan Brown
Article information:
To cite this document:
Brad Moore Alan Brown, (2006),"The application of TQM: organic or mechanistic?", International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 Iss 7 pp. 721 - 742
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710610679798
Downloaded on: 22 August 2016, At: 12:49 (PT)
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 12:49 22 August 2016 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 34 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2911 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2003),"Organic vs. Mechanistic Structures: Construction and Validation of a Scale of Measurement",
Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp. 111-123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15365430380000521
(2012),"Chapter 4 Mechanistic and Organic Innovations", Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting,
Vol. 24 pp. 51-70 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3512(2012)0000024008
(2014),"Organisational paradigms and sustainability in excellence: From mechanistic approaches to
learning and innovation", International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 6 Iss 2/3 pp. 181-190
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-02-2014-0020
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:273599 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm
Organic or
The application of TQM: mechanistic?
organic or mechanistic?
Brad Moore and Alan Brown
Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia 721
Received July 2004
Abstract Revised April 2005
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the application of Total Quality Management (TQM) in five
organizations in light of the assumption that its implementation is an ongoing negotiated order rather
than an objective reality as often accepted by the literature. Guided by a theoretical framework
identified by Spencer (1994), the perceptions of a cross-section of managers and employees in these
organizations are used to establish the nature of applied TQM in terms of mechanistic and organic
“mental models” of organization.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper shows that research methodology is qualitative, and
evidence was collected primarily through semi-structured in-depth interviews. A non-quantifying
general analytic methodology was used to analyse the evidence collected via convenience sampling.
Findings – The findings in this paper indicate that, in three of the organizations, TQM is being
applied in generally organic ways. In the other two organizations, strong influences of the mechanistic
model were detected. In many cases, elements of both mechanistic and organic approaches can be
found in the same organization.
Research limitations/implications – The research in this paper is qualitative and exploratory in
nature and, as such, does not attempt to investigate the implementation of TQM across a large number
of organizations nor generalize the findings.
Originality/value – The research in this paper has significant originality as there is little research,
to date, evident on the alternative view, of the implementation of TQM, espoused by Spencer (1994).
The research contributes to the literature by demonstrating that the application of TQM can be both
mechanistic and organic, encouraging the debate to focus on the nature of the variation of
implementation as a subject of discussion in its own right.
Keywords Quality, Total quality management, Research methods
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In recent times, a dominant and persistent theme in management thinking throughout
the business world has been the philosophy of Total Quality Management (TQM).
There is no universally accepted definition of TQM, although Miller (1996, p. 157)
suggests that it is “an ongoing process whereby top management takes whatever steps
necessary to enable everyone in the organization in the course of performing all duties
to establish and achieve standards which meet or exceed the needs and expectations of
their customers, both external and internal.” Indeed, whilst TQM is often now known
by other names, it is widely accepted that few organizations can long avoid demands
for a top driven and integrated customer focussed approach to business and the
ongoing improvement of the quality of their goods and services. International Journal of Quality &
Certainly, TQM has achieved both a rare celebrity and widespread notoriety Reliability Management
Vol. 23 No. 7, 2006
afforded to few such ideas previously, based on the number of papers published over pp. 721-742
the past decade and a half. It appears most palatable to many practitioners as it q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-671X
encompasses many fundamental issues in understanding and managing organizations. DOI 10.1108/02656710610679798
IJQRM In offering a possible reason for the attractiveness of TQM to decision makers and its
23,7 widespread adoption, Wilkinson and Willmott (1995), suggested that it, in part, “holds
out the promise of a unified set of principles which can guide managers through the
numerous choices open to them or might even make choosing unnecessary” (p. 8).
However, TQM has drawn wide criticism in the academic literature, especially in
relation to the absence of empirical and theoretical work into the key elements of the
722 philosophy (Dean and Bowen, 1994; Hackman and Wageman, 1995). Proponents of
TQM in the popular management literature have often projected the principles of TQM
as axiomatic and to be accepted as articles of faith, yet studies such as Mathews (1992)
and Fuchsberg (1993) (cited in Powell, 1995, p. 16) have failed to show that TQM firms
consistently outperform non-TQM firms. Wilkinson et al. (1995) show relatively low
managerial perceptions of success with quality management programs in the UK in the
early nineties. On the other hand, a number of studies argue that implementation
improves organizational performance (see, for example, Easton and Jarrell, 1998;
Hendricks and Singhal, 2001; Lawler et al., 1992; Walton, 1989). Further, Reed et al.
(2000, pp. 5, 19) argue that TQM can generate a sustainable competitive advantage for
organizations.
A cornerstone to the arguments about the efficacy of TQM is that it is an objective
reality that is amenable to relatively precise measurement. According to this wisdom,
organizations objectively discover TQM, choose either to implement it or not, and if they
do implement it, clearly succeed or fail in the attempt. Spencer (1994) has provided an
alternative possibility: that the implementation of TQM is continuously enacted by
organizational participants and is informed by the frailties of human understanding and
the biases of human perspectives. This alternative view moves away from an outcomes
based assessment of TQM that pervades much of the literature, towards a focus on the
implementation process as a worthwhile area of study per se. Here, notions of success or
failure that rely on some objectively set criteria cease to have immediate relevance.
Spencer (1994) has suggested that mental models, assumptions and preconceptions of the
nature of organizations strongly influence the way people in fact organize.
This research aims to examine the enactment of TQM in five, medium- to
large-sized organizations, and to consider this implementation in terms of dominant
models of organization. Further, this research seeks to do so in a neutral manner,
without extolling or condemning the different approaches to implementation observed.
Organic and mechanistic approaches to TQM

It is one thing to suggest that the implementation of TQM in organizations is an
enacted rather than an objective order, but quite a different prospect to show
convincingly whether any given implementation reflects one model, or pattern of
thinking, or another. Spencer (1994, p. 446) argued that TQM is a “comprehensive
management practice that captures signals from established models of organization
and amplifies them by providing a methodology for use.” From a review of the TQM
literature, Spencer (1994) proposed that there are seven major doctrinal dimensions of
this methodology into which the basic tenets of TQM fall: organizational goals;
definition of quality; role and nature of the environment; role of the management; role
of the employees; structural rationality and philosophy toward change. Each
dimension allows the basic nature of TQM to be made explicit. For example, the
definition of quality is seen as satisfying or delighting the customer and the role of
employees is, through empowerment, to improve quality within a system designed by Organic or
management (Spencer, 1994, p. 447). mechanistic?
Using this framework, Spencer (1994) examined the contribution of three major
models of organization (organism, machine and culture) to the practice of TQM.
Following from this, it is logical to propose that this framework is useful in revealing
the way in which the fundamental principles of TQM are translated in a given
organizational setting. This present research proceeded on the basis of dominant 723
models of organization, of which Morgan (1997) identified two: the machine or
mechanistic model, and the organism or organic model. Spencer (1994) proposed, for
example, that the definition of quality under the mechanistic model related to a
conformance to internally generated standards, whilst under the organic model,
customer satisfaction would be emphasized. Further, the role of employees under the
mechanistic model would be interpreted in more passive and order following terms,
whilst under the organic model, greater use of self control and adjustment would be
expected in carrying out tasks. See Table I, adapted from Spencer (1994, p. 459), for a
comparative summary of the two models. An examination and comparison in this
research of the third model, organizations as cultures, was not proceeded with since the
focus of the research is on dominant models of organization, which, as established
above, are arguably organizations as machines and organisms.
Spencer (1994, pp. 446-447) suggested that the implementation of TQM may be
viewed, in terms of a “methodology for use”, along seven basic doctrinal dimensions as
shown in Table II (adapted from Spencer, 1994, p. 447). These seven dimensions
arguably provide not only a useful heuristic device, but also an effective framework for
collating and analyzing evidence garnered from the actual experience of TQM. As
Spencer (1994) based her theoretical work on the assumption that TQM is a continuous
enactment, implementation is accordingly to be seen through the eyes of the participants.
Research by Beyer et al. (1997) and Zbaracki (1998) has acknowledged the
contribution made by Spencer, and through qualitative methodologies both studies
Dimension Mechanistic model Organic model
Organizational goals Efficiency/performance goals Organizational survival (requires

performance)
Definition of quality Conformance to standards Customer satisfaction
Role/nature of environment Objective/outside boundary Objective/inside boundary
Role of management Coordinate and provide visible Coordinate and provide invisible
control control by creating vision/system
Role of employees Passive/follow orders Reactive/self-control within
system parameters
Structural rationality Chain of command (vertical Process flow (horizontal and Table I.
communication) vertical communication) Comparison of
Philosophy toward change Stability is valued but learning Change and learning assist in organizational models in
arises from speculation adaptation relation to the seven
doctrinal dimensions
Source: Adapted from Spencer (1994, p. 459) of TQM
IJQRM
TQM doctrinal dimension Doctrinal content
23,7
Goal TQM establishes quality enhancement as a dominant priority and one
that is vital for long-term effectiveness and survival. Improving
quality can decrease rather than increase costs and facilitate
attainment of other demands and objectives
724 Definition of quality Quality is satisfying or delighting the customer. All quality
improvement initiatives must begin with an understanding of
customer perceptions
Role/nature of environment TQM blurs the boundaries between the organization and the
environment. Entities previously regarded as outsiders (e.g. suppliers,
customers) are now considered part of organizational processes
Role of management Management’s role is to create constancy of purpose for quality
improvement of products and services (Deming, 1982), and to devise a

system that can create quality outcomes. Managers and the system,
rather than the workers, have the responsibility for poor quality
outcomes (Juran, 1991; Ross, 1993)
Role of employees Employees are empowered to make decisions, build relationships, and
take steps needed to improve quality within the system designed by
management. Additional training and educational opportunities
provide necessary skills for this broader role
Structural rationality The organization is reconfigured as a set of horizontal processes that
begin with the supplier and end with the customer. Teams are
organized around processes to facilitate task accomplishment
Philosophy toward change Change, continuous improvement and learning are encouraged.
Ideally, all organizational members are motivated to improve the
Table II. status quo
Seven dimensions of
TQM doctrine Source: Adapted from Spencer (1994, p. 447)
examined aspects of the implementation of TQM as a social construction. On the other

hand, Ezzamel et al. (2001) examined an evidently disastrous implementation of “lean
manufacturing” initiatives (JIT/TQC) in a UK manufacturing plant using reconstructed
labour process theory to uncover deep seated employee resistance and power and
control issues. Further, the implementation, of TQM and BPR was critically-examined,
in two organizations by De Cock and Hipkin (1997), and tensions and paradoxes
between underlying managerial motivations and the results of implementation were
identified.
Research focus
This research sought to examine the extent to which key elements of the TQM doctrine
are modified in the process of implementation towards a greater organic or mechanistic
emphasis. Indeed, from the above discussion, two distinct strands of the debate
emerge. The first strand relates to the supposed effect organizational models have on
the nature of applied TQM. The second strand relates to the variance between doctrinal
and applied TQM. Therefore, the research is directed towards answering the following
two primary questions:
(1) In terms of the major dimensions of TQM identified in the literature, is TQM Organic or
applied in an organic or mechanistic way? mechanistic?
(2) In terms of the major dimensions of TQM identified in the literature, in which
way(s) does applied TQM vary from doctrinal TQM?
The first question seeks to uncover the overall mechanistic or organic nature of TQM
applied in organizations in terms of the seven basic TQM dimensions (organizational 725
goals, definition of quality, role of environment, management and employees,
structural rationality and philosophy towards change). The nature of each dimension
as specified in Table II is used to identify the trends towards either the mechanistic or
organic model in accordance with the evidence. The second question extends this line
of investigation further by seeking a better understanding of the extent of variation
between doctrinal and applied TQM. The seven basic doctrinal dimensions provide a
useful means of comparing the research findings with the doctrine of TQM. Through
this approach, important points of departure between theory and practice can be
identified.
Methodology
The choice of methodological approach was guided by the assumption that the
implementation of TQM is not an objective reality but rather a continuous enactment
in which social reality is a negotiated order, constructed by the organizational
participants. The possible diversity of these constructed realities was viewed in a
number of discrete organizational settings and according to the perceptions of a range
of organizational members.
As greater sensitivity was needed to detect the way individuals construct the reality
of TQM, a qualitative rather than quantitative research strategy was deemed to be
most appropriate (Morgan and Smircich, 1980). Martin (1990, p. 31) notes that
qualitative methods rely on “high-variety research languages” utilising verbal and
non-verbal modes of communication through a “broad spectrum of specific techniques”
including participant observation, formal and informal interview techniques and
documentary analysis. Given the scope and constraints of this research, evidence was
collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews, and to a lesser extent, by
examination of documents and participant observation between interviews, in plant
inspections and in one case, during a quality audit. The approach taken was in keeping
with the case study design (Remenyi et al., 1998), and aligned with the research of
Zbaracki (1998) and Beyer et al. (1997) where the primary source of evidence was the
semi-structured interview. Convenience sampling was used to select the organizations
and interviewees within each organization.
In keeping with the qualitative approach to evidence gathering, a non-quantifying
general analytic methodology as described by Hussey and Hussey (1997) was used to
analyze the evidence collected. The procedures used to reduce, distil and abstract the
evidence were informed by methods suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994) and
involved the extensive use of coding, data displays and matrixes. The theoretical
framework provided a template from which further structuring of the evidence was
undertaken.
The emerging patterns of evidence were abstracted into generalized observations,
descriptions and specifications within context from which the research questions could
IJQRM be addressed. The elements and features of an organic and mechanistic
23,7 implementation of TQM, in relation to each of the seven dimensions, were used as
comparative benchmarks both within each case and across the five cases.
The final assessment, of the strength of influence, by either model and the variance
of applied TQM from the doctrine was subjectively ascertained by the researcher. The
apparent pattern or consensus emerging in each of the dimensions was carefully
726 “weighed” against dissenting views and the objective and reflective statements of the
interviewees to achieve overall impressions. Dissenting or “outlier” views were valued
as timely “reality checks” when an otherwise strong consensus in a particular area
appeared. Indeed, Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 270) have suggested that in many
cases effective “outlier analysis strengthens an original conclusion.” Particular care
was shown in identifying “stronger” and “weaker” evidence relative to the nature of the
source, circumstances in which the evidence was collected and whether the evidence
was supported by other sources (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 268). To assist in
identifying and emphasizing the direction of influence of each model on the
organization, the terms “push” and “pull” were ascribed and used in the findings.
Evidence of organic model influences on the implementation of TQM were denoted as
“push” influences, whilst those of the mechanistic model were denoted as “pull”
influences. The terms are purely descriptive and instructive, without any sub-textual
or pejorative meaning intended.
The organizations
In all, the views of a total of 30 interviewees were sought at five medium to large sized
organizations in Western Australia, with between four and eight members from each of
the five organizations contributing. For the purpose of anonymity, the organizations
have been given the following arbitrary pseudonyms: T-co, S-co, E-co, U-co and B-co.
Interviewees represented a wide range of job titles and descriptions, which included the
following positions: operations management and other senior managerial roles; quality
management, department/branch management, engineering and other middle
managerial roles; production line supervisors and other lower managerial roles;
sales and distribution personnel, shop floor personnel and other production and
administrative operatives.
Four of the five organizations are medium-sized commercial enterprises, the fifth
(U-co) being a large public services enterprise. All organizations have well developed
and structured quality assurance systems as well as long, continuous and apparently
successful histories of operation. Two of the medium sized organizations (E-co and
S-co) are semi autonomous divisions of much larger national and international parent
entities. E-co is principally a manufacturer of goods, whilst S-co distributes products
(manufactured elsewhere) and provides services.
U-co has a very mature quality system, and is working towards third party Quality
Assurance certification. It has been active in the implementation of TQM and kindred
approaches to quality over the last decade. E-co also has a mature quality system and
has third party certification to ISO 9001. Furthermore, the organization actively
implements the principles of TQM by that name, and has done so for several years.
S-co has a mature quality system, and has third party certification to ISO 9002. The
organization was one of the many early adopters of TQM.
Of the other two, B-co is part of a larger international consumer goods Organic or
manufacturing operation and T-co is a privately owned supplier of commercial mechanistic?
products manufactured overseas. B-co has a mature quality system, and is working
towards third party Quality Assurance certification to add greater authority to its
quality efforts. The organization is a relative latecomer to TQM, as it began actively
implementing it from the late 1990s onwards. T-co is developing its quality system
towards maturity, and has third party certification to ISO 9002. It has been active for 727
several years in the implementation of TQM by that name. Table III summarises the
key features of the research source material in each of the subject organizations.
Findings
The following discussion provides an analysis of the findings of the research in terms
of the two dominant models of organization and the seven dimensions of TQM.
Organizational goals
Spencer (1994, p. 447) noted that the dominant priority in the philosophy of TQM is
goal enhancement, specifically, to improve quality. The notion that quality provides a
winning edge which ensures organizational survival is intertwined with the argument
often made in the literature that contemporary organizations face increasing
environmental uncertainty and increasingly competitive global markets (see, for
example, Beyer et al., 1997; Bounds et al., 1994; Walton, 1989, 1990).
Similarly, the organic perspective sees goal attainment as the organization’s prime
orientation, but in terms of the broader goal of system continuance (that is, survival)
that displaces performance and efficiency goals (Thompson, cited in Spencer, 1994,
p. 455). Although the need to make a profit is not ignored, the organizational obedience
to “mammon” is seen to serve only as a means of survival rather than as the end goal
per se (Spencer, 1994, p. 455). Therefore, evidence, which indicates that long-term
organizational survival, as reflected by quality improvement, is prized above
short-term financial goals, as reflected by efficiency and productivity, shows a “push”
towards the organic model in the implementation of TQM.
Like the organic perspective, a key tenet of the mechanistic view of organizations is
that an organization’s raison d’etre is to attain goals. However, unlike the organic
approach, the main aim is to achieve a performance goal or goals, which in practice
relates to concerns about efficiency and productivity (Spencer, 1994). Indeed, the
relationship between the organization and its employees is expressed in legal terms,
bound by the law of contract. Typical of the unitarist view, employees are expected to
subordinate “personal interests and needs for the benefit of the organization” (Spencer,
1994, p. 449). Hence, evidence, which indicates that short-term financial goals, as
reflected by efficiency and productivity, are prized above a longer-term goal of
organizational survival, as reflected by quality improvement, shows a “pull” towards
the mechanistic model in the implementation of TQM.
From the evidence, the results in this dimension are clearly polarized. Goals in three
of the organizations are strongly influenced by the mechanistic model. In S-co, U-co
and B-co, organizational goals are expressed unequivocally in terms of increasing or
maximizing shareholder return, corporate profitability or overall efficiency. Quality
improvement is seen as a supportive and necessary albeit secondary element in
organizational performance. In each of these organizations, energies are focused
23,7
728
IJQRM
Table III.
interviewees
Details of subject
organizations and
Pseudonym Type Interviews Other Job roles of respondents
T-co Medium size; retail supplier of products 8 Observation during operations tour, Quality manager, department heads,
with commercial application documents shopfloor operatives
S-co Medium size; division of large national 6 Observation during plant tour, Quality manager, operations manager,
company documents branch manager, office and warehouse
floor operatives
E-co Medium size; division of large 4 Observation of quality audit at plant, Quality manager, operations manager,
international company documents engineers, shopfloor operatives
U-co Large size; public services organization 6 Documents Quality manager, middle managers, plant
and administrative operatives
B-co Medium size; part of large international 6 Observation during plant tour, Quality manager, production line
manufacturing operation documents supervisors and operatives, quality
department operatives
primarily on performance goal setting, adherence to specific work procedures, and Organic or
outcomes rather than processes. Measurement is by key performance indicators set by mechanistic?
management, and conformance to organizational norms and requirements is couched
in legalistic terms.
On the other hand, both T-co and E-co show convincing evidence of a strong push
towards the organic model in the implementation of their versions of TQM. Long-term
survival through growth and the development of reputations for quality are emphasized 729
over short-term performance goals. Here, the conventional TQM wisdom that a focus on
quality leads to long-term survival and performance appears strongly held. At T-co,
long-term survival was expressed in terms of the traditional values of the organization,
long-term prospects through growth in market share and the maintenance of market
leadership. At E-co, a flexible and expanding product range tailored to the individual
requirements of customers and an espoused belief in the customer as the organizational
raison d’etre, convincingly showed strong organic propensities.
Definition of quality
The conventional wisdom of TQM defines quality as satisfying or delighting the
customer. Central to this definition is the notion that all efforts to improve quality must
begin, and end, with an appreciation of customer wants, needs, tastes and perceptions.
Indeed, Eisman (cited in Spencer, 1994, p. 450) suggested that if an organization is not
providing something, which the customer finds useful, everything else that is done to
provide that something does not really matter.
Quality, as defined in terms of the organic model, is “perfectly compatible” with the
definition of quality under the TQM doctrine (Spencer, 1994, p. 456). From the organic
viewpoint, quality (along with all other organizational activities) is determined by the
careful and detailed assessment of environmental forces, movements and actions
(Spencer, 1994, p. 456). Clearly, the actions and movements of customers are of key
concern under the organic perspective. Hence, evidence which indicates that quality is
defined in terms of satisfying or delighting customers by the conformance to standards
set in accordance with customer expectations shows a “push” towards the organic
model in the implementation of TQM.
When defined in mechanistic terms, quality is those inputs, outputs and actions
which conform to standards that have been laid down by the organization (Spencer,
1994, p. 450). Certainly, internally derived standards may be portrayed as being
customer driven, but these will reflect presumptions made by the organization about
what satisfies and delights customers. Evidence which indicates that quality is defined
in terms of the conformance to internally set standards in the absence of a meaningful
assessment of customer expectations shows a “pull” towards the mechanistic model in
the implementation of TQM.
The results in terms of the definition of quality are less distinctively separated than
for the organizational goal dimension. Although evidence from S-co, U-co and B-co
indicated that the mechanistic model was influential, only B-co showed an
unambiguously strong result. At B-co, quality is perceived in terms of the
conformance to an internally derived standard where customer expectations are
clearly recognized but are seen more in abstract rather than in embodied terms. In
other words, although the customer was seen as “king” at B-co, the evidence suggested
that the organization is seen to lead, and the customer to follow, rather than the reverse.
IJQRM This aspect was seen as a point of departure from the other two organizations with
23,7 identifiable though intermediate mechanistic traits in this dimension, U-co and S-co.
On the other hand, both T-co and E-co exhibited strong or relatively strong
influences by the organic model. Quality at both organizations is expressed in terms of
at least meeting the expectations of customers. These expectations are not generally
presumed by the organizations, but are carefully and comprehensively identified
730 through close and continual contact with the end users.
Role and nature of environment

As an important implication of the TQM doctrine, the demarcation between the
organization and its environment is indistinct, so that organizational stakeholders
previously considered as a part of the environment, such as suppliers and customers,
are regarded as intrinsic to the operational processes of the organization (Spencer,
1994, p. 447).
The organic approach sees a continuous interaction between organizations and
their environments where organizations are not seen as autonomous entities. Instead,
they have an interdependence with environmental entities whose presence and
activities are often beyond organizational control and prediction (Thompson, cited in
Spencer, 1994, p. 456). Indeed, Deming’s proposition that customers and suppliers are
not only an essential part of organizational processes but also intrinsic to them
(Deming, 1986; Walton, 1989, 1990) is consonant with the organic perspective.
However, the mechanistic perspective sees the relationship between the
organization and its environment as arm’s length in nature given the internal focus
on its own processes. Spencer argues that Deming’s proposition that the customers and
suppliers are intrinsic to organizational processes is merely a reframing of the internal
viewpoint so as to “incorporate more constituents, but the focal point (of the
organization’s technical core) remains the same” (p. 450).
Only T-co provided unequivocal evidence of a strong influence by one of the mental
models. Here, a strong push towards the organic model is evident through the
development of close person-to-person relationships with customers and preferred
suppliers by organizational personnel. Accordingly, these “external” entities are seen
as an essential part of the organization’s processes and the evidence suggests that this
belief is deeply embedded rather than merely given “lip service”. The evidence of the
effect of the organic model on E-co is less convincing. Although close relationships
with customers appear the norm, relations with suppliers and especially amongst
internal entities are more problematic. Nonetheless, on balance, greater influence by the
organic rather than the mechanistic model is apparent in the organization in this
dimension.
Towards the mechanistic end of the scale are U-co and B-co, with both showing an
intermediate pull towards the machine model. At B-co, centralized supplier and retail
customer relationships are very much on a legalistic basis. Further, convincing
evidence exists of sub-cultural differences caused by functional specialization within
the organization, which, despite extensive use of teams and teamwork, still appear
significant. Similarly, at U-co, supplier relationships, with only a few exceptions,
remain on an arm’s length and legalistic basis, although the organization now engages
in far greater consultation with end users and the community than it did even a few
years ago in regard to its activities and delivery of services.
A most unusual and perhaps enlightening result emerges when the evidence from Organic or
S-co is considered. Whilst the other four organizations are relatively centralized in one mechanistic?
primary location each, S-co is decentralized across several locations. Evidence was
collected at two of these locations, S-co City and S-co Metro. Differences in perceptions
were unremarkable under the first two dimensions (goals and definition of quality), but
a significant schism appeared under the role and nature of the environment and
subsequently under the roles of managers, employees and structural rationality. 731
A strong influence by the organic model on S-co City is apparent, whilst only an
overall weak organic push is apparent at S-co Metro. Indeed, some mechanistic traits
were evident in this dimension at the latter location. To a certain extent, the
explanation for this, as proposed by a number of interviewees, lies in the styles of the
local management and cultural differences between the locations. Significant latitude is
available to local site managers at each S-co location to stamp their personality on
branch operations. Close personal associations with internal and external customers
and suppliers appear the norm at S-co City. On the other hand, a degree of functional
differentiation at S-co Metro and a more formal approach to relationships with external
entities suggest a trend towards the mechanistic model.
Role of management
Under TQM, the role of management is to “create constancy of purpose for [the]
improvement of products and services” (Deming, 1982, cited in Spencer, 1994, p. 447).
According to this wisdom, management designs a system that is capable of producing
quality output, and consequently it is the management and not the employees who are
responsible for poor quality.
Under the organic model, management’s role is to “act as the brain of the system”
(Beer, cited in Spencer, 1994, p. 456). Here, the organizational vision is designed, and,
policies and system boundaries, are delineated by management, to guide and moderate,
employee decision-making (Selznick, cited in Spencer, 1994, p. 456). The role of
management is not seen in terms of central command, but rather in monitoring
performance and the provision of feedback when remedial action is necessary (Spencer,
1994, p. 456). Hence, evidence which shows a preference by managers to indirectly
coordinate processes and exert invisible control by creating an efficacious system,
clearly enunciating the organization’s mission and engendering a vision, will indicate a
“push” towards an organic implementation of TQM.
The mechanistic perspective sees the role of management as one of planning,
organizing, directing and controlling (Spencer, 1994, p. 450). Management is seen to act as
a central command from which instructions and orders flow in a downward pattern
throughout the organization. Poor quality is seen as an inevitable by-product of everyday
operation for which specialist controllers are needed to reduce or obviate. Accordingly,
evidence which shows that managers prefer a more directive and “hands on” approach to
the coordination of work tasks and a visible control of organizational processes and
employees indicates a “pull” towards a mechanistic implementation of TQM.
The overall thrust of the evidence in the role played by management in the
implementation of TQM, whilst not strong, is undoubtedly towards the organic model.
With management at T-co, S-co City, E-co and B-co providing a guiding, resource
allocating, monitoring and coaching role, the influence of the organic model in these
organizations is clearly evident. Furthermore, E-co and B-co top managers are seen to
IJQRM “walk the talk” and wherever possible convey and inspire the organizational “vision”.
23,7 The effectiveness of this visible and active role is supported by evidence of a
willingness to delegate responsibilities and empower employees within managerially
set boundaries. However, at T-co, the role of senior management in the implementation
of TQM was seen by a few in slightly dubious terms, with some reliance being placed
on the middle management as the “owners” of the quality process.
732 At S-co Metro, on the other hand, the value and effectiveness of teams is questioned
by the management and a more directive approach is apparent. Accordingly, a more
mechanistic application of TQM is evident in relation to the role of managers. However,
the evidence at U-co is inconclusive and the direction of influence is indeterminate. A
consistent theme emerging from the interviews at U-co was an almost complete lack of
central coordination and drive in the implementation of TQM by top managers.
Further, the top management at U-co was criticized by several middle managers for not
understanding the requirements and consequences of the implementation of TQM in

the organization. Indeed, middle managers had been directed to carry out major quality
exercises, such as achieving certification to ISO 9000 standards, within apparently
arbitrary timeframes without discussion or planning.
Role of employees
The empowerment of employees is undoubtedly a key theoretical premise to the
implementation of TQM (Korukonda et al., 1999; Lawler et al., 1995). Without employee
empowerment, albeit within managerially defined parameters, the promise of quality
being built into every step of the process rather than merely inspected out by quality
specialists at the end of the line could not realistically be achieved.
According to the organic perspective, employees are bound to the organization and
the achievement of organizational goals through a shared vision and commitment
rather than mere hierarchical subservience (Spencer, 1994, p. 457). In the logical
extension of the metaphor that organizations are organisms, employees are seen as
organs or cells of the body essential for its good health and function rather than
components in a machine. From this perspective, employees are encouraged to “define
their roles and increase their power by building a network of contacts both within and
outside the organization . . . (and consequently) are less easily replaced” (Gharajedaghi
and Ackoff, cited in Spencer, 1994, p. 457). Therefore, evidence of the implementation of
TQM, which shows that employees are allowed to react to certain situations and have
latitude for self-control within boundaries set by management, indicates a “push”
towards the organic model.
Under the mechanistic model, “employees follow orders and carry out specialized
tasks within narrowly specified positions” (Spencer, 1994, p. 451). Thus, evidence
which shows that the role of employees is one of passivity and following orders, and
that control over processes is essentially the responsibility of management and their
appointed specialists, indicates that the implementation of TQM has been “pulled”
towards the mechanistic model.
With the exception of S-co Metro, all organizations displayed influences towards the
organic model in relation to the role played by employees in the implementation of
TQM. With a comprehensive use of functional and cross-functional teams and a strong
commitment to the organizational vision and mission, both T-co and E-co showed a
strong push towards the organic model. At S-co City, the effect was similar, with a
close knit and empowered membership engaging in decision making within Organic or
managerially set boundaries. Although the effect was less evident at B-co and U-co, mechanistic?
both nonetheless exhibited some organic influences. Employees at B-co, for example,
had well defined boundaries in which to operate and displayed a strong commitment to
continuous improvement. However, a bone of contention at U-co was the lack of the
clear definition of the boundaries of empowerment, although employees generally
knew the unspoken limits. Indeed, it was argued that employees could draw some 733
comfort in the knowledge that their “lawful” decisions would be supported by their
superiors. At S-co Metro, although teams are used and some independent decision
making by employees is evident, a strong reliance on managerial directives and
procedural controls indicated a pull of some strength towards the mechanistic model.
Structural rationality
Spencer (1994, p. 447) noted that, under TQM, tasks are accomplished by teams, which are
centred around organizational processes. Overall, the organization is restructured as a set
of horizontal processes, which extends outside of the organization to embrace suppliers
and customers. Accordingly, Spencer (1994, p. 452) observed that “enhancing the flow of
work across processes theoretically is more important than [in] maintaining control.”
Under the organic model, horizontal and vertical coordination and organizational
rationality are emphasized (Spencer, 1994, p. 457). Unlike the mechanistic viewpoint,
advice and information, rather than decisions and instructions, “are shared across
functional areas and between people of different rank” (Burns and Stalker, cited in
Spencer, 1994, p. 457). Communication arrangements involving both vertical and
horizontal lines of communication are seen to promote these ends. In this, overall control
of the process is not surrendered by management, but achieved more by collective and
concertive means than directive, technological or bureaucratic control strategies (Barker,
1993, p. 409). Hence, evidence which clearly shows effective lines of communication in
both horizontal and vertical directions, and an emphasis on organizational rationality
(that is, goal seeking activity justified on the grounds of organizational efficacy) will
indicate a “push” towards the organic model in the implementation of TQM.
From the mechanistic viewpoint, the structure of an organization is seen as a
downward looking chain of command (Chapple and Sayles, cited in Spencer, 1994,
p. 452). The effect of this chain of command is to efficiently exert control over the
organization. A key tenet in the mechanistic perspective, and indeed classical
organization theory, is the division of labour (Shafritz and Ott, 1994, p. 31). It is seen as
the “primary means of attaining performance goals and ensuring technical rationality”,
and coordination amongst the specialized groups is dealt with by reference to a higher
authority in the hierarchy (Spencer, 1994, p. 452). Hence, evidence which indicates a
vertical pattern of communication along a chain of command and an organizational
emphasis on technical rationality (that is goal seeking activity justified on the grounds
of technical efficiency) will suggest that the implementation of TQM has been “pulled”
towards the mechanistic model.
The dimension of structural rationality returns the discussion to one of a dichotomy
in the approaches taken at the five organizations. The evidence from S-co Metro, U-co
and B-co shows a clear indication of the influence of the mechanistic model. At both
S-co Metro and U-co, for example, an emphasis on hierarchical referral, a
preponderance of top down communication, and significant discouragement of
IJQRM lateral communication between functional departments suggest a strong predilection
23,7 towards the machine model. B-co is a relatively recent convert to TQM, and still has
echoes of a bureaucratic and production focused past life. However, comprehensive and
increasingly effective use of cross-functional and functional teams indicates that these
stubborn vestiges of the mechanistic model are gradually being overcome, and only a
weak to intermediate influence remains.
734 The evidence at T-co, S-co City and E-co, conversely, provides indications of a push
towards the organic model in some strength. In particular, T-co and E-co appear to
have well-developed lateral as well as vertical communications. Further, the
requirement for hierarchical referral appears to have been removed except in clearly
strategic matters. In both organizations then, the pattern of communication is both
vertical, in terms of guidance, feedback and assistance from management, and
horizontal, in terms of process adjustment and coordination between functional units.
At the closely knit S-co City, the emphasis was placed on consensus and a meaningful
involvement in decision-making. Indeed, communication on matters of work processes
and the day-to-day operation of the business was often informal.
Philosophy toward change

In keeping with the active role played by employees in quality improvement, positive
change and continuous improvement are fostered under TQM (Spencer, 1994, p. 447).
Organizations are seen as environments in which learning and employee development
are encouraged (Spencer, 1994, p. 447). Strategies such as benchmarking,
cross-functional teams and employee training approaches foster continuous learning
in the organization (p. 458).
From the organic viewpoint, the prime goal, as noted earlier, is organizational
survival. Hence, organizations, like organisms, must cope with and resolve a range of
environmental challenges. Organizations will therefore develop abilities to search for
and learn about the effects environmental forces have on them (Thompson, cited in
Spencer, 1994, p. 458). Evidence, which indicates a preference for organizational
adaptation to environmental forces through evolutionary change and learning,
suggests a “push” towards the organic model in the implementation of TQM.
From a mechanistic standpoint, “stability is prized because it increases
predictability, which in turn, increases control” (Spencer, 1994, p. 453). This
viewpoint is a natural extension of the machine metaphor where, once control is
achieved, the machine is set to replicate the product in the specified quantity and
quality of output. Spencer (1994, p. 453) noted that the shift in emphasis from control
and stability towards one of learning and a tolerance for change “appears to mark a
vital distinction between mechanistic thinking and TQM.” Accordingly, evidence,
which indicates a preference towards stability in organizational processes, shows a
“pull” towards a mechanistic implementation of TQM.
The evidence indicates a propensity towards the organic model in virtually all
organizations studied. T-co, E-co and B-co all displayed the hallmarks of the organic
model in terms of the perceptions of the organizational philosophy toward change: a
long term horizon, emphasis on continual improvement and an active awareness and
pursuit of environmental forces impinging on organizational survival. These
perceptions were supported by evidence and observations of organizational practice,
including a systematic approach to corrective action and process adjustment (such as
through quality assurance), the use of key performance indicators to identify Organic or
organizational strengths and weaknesses, and the fostering of a work culture, which is mechanistic?
amenable to continuous improvement.
However, whilst S-co (both locations) presently displays some adherence to the tenets
of continuous improvement, a longer-term view indicates a serious discontinuity of
approach. Indeed, many interviewees were able to provide a detailed history of the ebb
and flow in approaches taken over the last decade at S-co. In view of these 735
inconsistencies, any assessment of a longer-term influence by either model cannot be
determined. Similarly, the evidence at U-co supports neither model. Examples abound in
the evidence at U-co of changes being made for the sake of change, and perhaps here
again, institutional theory (especially in terms of the rhetorical aspect of TQM identified
by Zbaracki (1998)) may prove more apposite in examining this phenomenon. However,
such a situation is arguably unsustainable, and a reversion to a more stable pattern of
little or no change reflected by the mechanistic model is to be expected.

Table IV summarizes the major findings of the research with the grey shading denoting
the relative strength of the influence of the mechanistic model. Lighter grey shadings
indicate weaker influences, whilst darker grey shadings indicate stronger influences. The
relative strength of the organic model is denoted by underlining and bold print.
Discussion
Based on some major dimensions of TQM, these research findings do not indicate that
the application of TQM is clearly and consistently either organic or mechanistic across
all five organizations. Consistent and relatively strong influences arise in only two
organizations, T-co and E-co with both organizations showing organic influences in the
implementation of TQM being present in terms of each and every one of the seven
dimensions. The use of evidence from two locations in a third organization, S-co,
provided mixed results. S-co City showed generally organic traits in the implementation
of TQM, whilst S-co Metro displayed generally mechanistic traits. The remaining
organizations, U-co and B-co, generally showed a propensity towards mechanistic
implementation in most dimensions, although the assessment for U-co is complicated by
the inability of the evidence to satisfy either model in two of the dimensions.
At first glance, these results may appear to offend commonsense, and what might
be estimated by the knowledgeable, but disinterested, observer. Given that mental
models do influence the implementation of TQM, the learned observer may intuitively
predict that such implementation should proceed in an internally consistent fashion
throughout. Further, the effect of the TQM doctrine and the pattern of practices
contained within, which, at face value, are strongly systems oriented, should create a
strong organic push in their own right. Indeed, the observer might argue that the
organic push should override the preconceptions and “mind set” of the organizational
participants engaged in the implementation. Alternatively, the observer could argue
that as the overriding pattern for organizations is the machine, which is reflected in the
overwhelming preponderance of bureaucratic forms in society (Robbins and Barnwell,
1998, p. 278), a mechanistic implementation should generally prevail. However, the
results of this research do not fit into either of these logical “packages”, and several
factors can be put forward as possible explanations.
The first possible clue comes from Spencer (1994, p. 448) who predicted that “[t]hose
who practice TQM may or may not hold strictly to any one of these . . . perspectives
23,7
736
IJQRM
Table IV.
Summary of the major
findings of the research
T-co S-co City S-co Metro E-co U-co B-co
Goals Strong push Strong pull Strong pull Strong push Strong pull towards Strong pull
towards organic towards towards towards organic mechanistic model towards
model mechanistic model mechanistic model model mechanistic model
Definition of quality Strong push Intermediate pull Intermediate pull Intermediate to Intermediate pull Strong pull
towards organic towards towards strong push towards towards
model mechanistic model mechanistic model towards organic mechanistic model mechanistic model
model
Role/nature of environment Strong push Intermediate to Weak push to Weak to Intermediate pull Intermediate pull
towards organic strong push to organic model intermediate push towards towards
model organic model towards organic mechanistic model mechanistic model
model
Role of management Weak to Strong push Intermediate to Intermediate to Indeterminate – Intermediate push
intermediate push towards organic strong pull strong push does not readily fit towards organic
towards organic model towards towards organic either mode model
model mechanistic model model
Role of employees Strong push Strong push Intermediate to Strong push Weak to Intermediate to
towards organic towards organic strong pull towards organic intermediate push strong push
model model towards model towards organic towards organic
mechanistic model model model
Structural rationality Intermediate to Strong push Strong pull Intermediate push Strong pull towards Weak to
strong push towards organic towards towards organic mechanistic model intermediate pull
towards organic model mechanistic model model towards
model mechanistic model
Philosophy toward change Intermediate to Short-term Intermediate to Intermediate to Presently Intermediate to
strong push intermediate push strong push strong push indeterminate strong push
towards organic towards organic towards organic towards organic towards organic
model model model model model
Influence overall Intermediate to Intermediate to Intermediate pull Intermediate to Intermediate pull Weak to
strong push strong push towards strong push towards intermediate pull
towards organic towards organic mechanistic model towards organic mechanistic model towards
model model model mechanistic model
[that is, models of organization]; indeed, they may vacillate [italics added] among them Organic or
. . . [although] allegiance to a particular viewpoint is likely to influence the practice of mechanistic?
TQM by affecting the selection and application of quality components.” As
implementation is assumed to be a process of continuous enactment rather than an
objective reality, the argument that the application of TQM is a complex and changing
mosaic becomes sustainable. In the enactment process, the various “quality
components” are argued over, negotiated, blended and modified. An additional 737
implication of this notion is that nobody “rings the bell” when the process of
implementation is complete. It is evolutionary by nature. Hence, TQM is either in an
ongoing state of implementation in which “TQM nirvana” is never possible, or is
unequivocally abandoned.
Indeed, it is conceivable that in the early bloom of implementation, the direction in
which TQM takes may be influenced by a systems approach and the conventional
wisdom of consultants, at the expense of any mechanistic predilections of participants.

This is suggested by Spencer (1994, p. 448) when the author notes that implementation
will be guided by choices “based not only on [the participants’] understanding of the
principles of TQM [italics added] but also on their own conceptual frameworks.” Later,
as the process matures and the consultants depart, a force of mechanistic gravity may
begin to be felt, and the nature of implementation changes accordingly.
A further insight may be gained from the research of De Cock and Hipkin (1997). The
authors suggested that a motivation to implement management systems such as TQM
derives to some extent from the “natural uncertainty and ambiguity embedded in reality,
which many people may experience as overwhelming, complex and chaotic” (De Cock
and Hipkin, 1997, p. 671). The authors propose that, rather than acknowledge the
possibility that such ambiguity “may not be resolvable”, managers “create symbolic
solutions such as the introduction of TQM and BPR programmes” (De Cock and Hipkin,
1997, p. 671). Whilst the implementation of such programmes may generate “the illusion
of controlling uncertainty” and restore “legitimacy for managerial privilege and
authority”, the authors’ empirical work in two organizations indicated that the “symbolic
solutions” (brought by, for example, TQM), “tended to increase rather than decrease
organizational ambiguity” (De Cock and Hipkin, 1997, p. 671). Logically, such an
inadvertent increase in ambiguity and redirection of managerial control may sow the
seeds of a pattern of resistance to implementation within the organization. Ezzamel et al.
(2001) found evidence of resistance on a dramatic scale to a re-imposition of managerial
control in the attempted implementation of TQC and lean production methods at a
manufacturing plant in the UK. This research disclosed, according to the authors, “how
workers can and do (authors’ italics) employ a variety of individual and collective forms
of resistance to stall, dilute and subvert the “new” . . . methods” (Ezzamel et al., 2001,
p. 1073). Whilst such factors may help to ultimately explain variations in implementation
outcomes, significant resistance to the application of TQM and increasing ambiguity or
discord of organizational members are not evident in any of the five organizations
researched herein.
Additional clues are also provided by three emerging themes from the present
research. First, in organizations, which are decentralized and confer significant
operational latitude on local management teams, the style of the site management may
provide an explanation for observed differences. It could be argued that more directive
management will exert an influence towards a more mechanistic implementation of
IJQRM TQM, whilst more consultative management will foster a more organic
23,7 implementation. This proposition offers to explain some of the perceived
implementation differences between S-co City and Metro, which were evident in
terms of the role of the environment, management, and employees, and in terms of
structural rationality. However, such a proposition does not explain the apparent
similarities between the two locations in the other dimensions. Indeed, a
738 decentralization of control to local sites may in itself suggest a more organic
implementation of TQM in the organization overall, at least in terms of structural
rationality. Closely associated with management style are lingering cultural influences
on the organization. U-co was described as having a strong engineering tradition, with
a concomitant adherence to standards, and this may attract mechanistic minded people
to the organization and proselytize new members to this outlook.
Second, the extent to which the organization has matured in the implementation of
TQM may also be a relevant factor, although the precise effect of this is not clear from
the evidence in this research. Certainly, with an intermediate to strong push towards
the organic model, T-co is a new entrant into TQM and has relatively recently also
acquired certification to ISO 9002. On the other hand, U-co, which arguably has a more
mechanistic approach overall, is a relative “old hand” at TQM and quality assurance. It
could be argued that mechanistic influences are stronger in the longer term, whilst
organic influences are more noticeable in the shorter term. This explanation, however,
is qualified by a conclusion in the research of Beyer et al. (1997). The researchers argue
that any positive result from a strongly mechanistic implementation of TQM (and by
implication, TQM itself in the organization) is short lived (Beyer et al., 1997, p. 33).
Further, B-co, with a generally mechanistic implementation, does not fit easily into this
explanation as it has had an extremely long exposure to quality systems but is a
relatively recent adopter of TQM.
The indeterminate nature of the role of management and philosophy towards change
at U-co serves to complicate the issue further. It is tempting to suggest that such an
indeterminate status indicates a “faulty” implementation in each of the two dimensions,
but such a conclusion would be inconsistent with the “no-fault” approach taken in this
research. When the long-term indeterminacy of S-co’s philosophy towards change is taken
into consideration as well, it could be that, over time, the application of TQM in certain
areas may tend to become less clear cut and certain as a result of organizational fatigue.
Last, organizational size may also contribute to mechanistic and organic influences.
For example, the smaller organizations (as discrete units) in the research, T-co, E-co
and S-co City, all displayed organic traits in the implementation of TQM. Conversely,
the larger organizations showed more mechanistic traits. Indeed, quantitative studies
have identified a link between larger organizational size and a higher incidence of
bureaucratic structures and mechanistic processes (Robbins and Barnwell, 1998,
pp. 141, 279). However, an essential part of the present research has been to control for
organizational structure, and accordingly no comparisons are possible from the
evidence.
Research and managerial implications

The results of this study have indicated at least four promising directions for future
research into the implementation of TQM, the first two of which also have clear
implications for managers.
First, the material yielded in this cross-sectional view of the implementation of TQM Organic or
may provide a suitable base for a future qualitative study, using Spencer (1994) mechanistic?
framework, of the same organizations. In so doing, insight into the course of the
implementation of TQM over time may be found in such a longitudinal approach,
which would also be of some practical importance to practitioners in their efforts to
plan, organise and control TQM implementation. Such an approach would be in
keeping with the point made by Beyer et al. (1997, p. 5) that any comprehensive 739
investigation of such a process of social change as TQM “requires collecting data over
time from many different actors.”
Second, Spencer (1994) call for ethnographic research into the subject should not be
ignored by future researchers. In particular, Spencer (1994, p. 467) suggested that
“[i]nterpretive researchers may wish to explore the links between the conceptual
frameworks (mental models) held by members who are implementing TQM practice . . .
[and] by conducting interviews . . . the rationale behind members’ choices as well as the
values these choices entail [may be discerned].” Evidence from such research may also
serve to guide practitioners in the long-term application of TQM. This present
research, in its exploratory role, has highlighted the usefulness of Spencer (1994) seven
dimensional framework as a heuristic tool and an effective template to structure
investigation into the moderating effect of models of organization on the
implementation process.
Third, the use or integration of other frameworks may assist in yielding further
insights into the interactive as well as the interpretive nature of TQM. For example,
Zbaracki (1998) uses institutional theory and considers the adoption, implementation
and use of TQM to see how institutional processes shape the technical reality of TQM.
The author develops a model, which demonstrates “how individual actions and
discourse shape TQM [italics added] and fuel institutional forces” (Zbaracki, 1998,
p. 602). Further, Beyer et al. (1997, p. 8) employ, in their analysis, the change model
which views the process of change in the discrete stages of adoption, implementation
and institutionalisation.
Last, structuralist researchers may find that a focus on the possible effect that
different organizational structures have on the development of TQM practice within
organizations may provide useful insights into the course and nature of applied TQM.
It is intuitively appealing (and even obvious) to postulate that an organic
organizational structure (such as reflected in a network or genuine matrix
organization) will exert a strong push towards an organic implementation of TQM.
Similarly, a bureaucratic organizational structure (such as reflected in the five
organizations selected in the present research) may exert a strong pull towards a
mechanistic implementation.
Conclusion
This paper has contributed to the literature by showing that the application of TQM in
organizations can be both mechanistic and organic. It supports previous findings by
Beyer et al. (1997) at two organizations they researched, one of which showed a
consistent mechanistic influence throughout, whilst the other had an “extremely
organic approach” (p. 32). The use of the seven dimensional framework suggested by
Spencer (1994) also reveals that the implementation of TQM in three of the
organizations in the present research is neither uniformly mechanistic nor organic, but
IJQRM varies according to the particular dimension studied. This result moves beyond the
23,7 observation of different but internally consistent implementations in the study by
Beyer et al. (1997), and supports Spencer (1994) prediction that the ongoing enactment
of TQM is subject to varying degrees of “vacillation” by practitioners among “mental”
models (p. 448).
Therefore, in the organizations studied, the implementation of TQM is proceeding in
740 either an organic or mechanistic manner, but not necessarily in a uniform manner
throughout the organizations. The lack of uniformity may arise in at least two main
ways. First, different doctrinal dimensions (such as goal orientation, definition of
quality and so on) may be consistently applied in a more mechanistic or organic way.
Alternatively, a location may apply TQM uniformly but differently to other locations
in the same organization.
Such an assessment of the evidence presented here creates some difficulties for a
unitarist view of TQM. The relatively simple seven dimensional scheme used in this
research allows a large number of permutations in the implementation of TQM to
potentially arise. Further, the counter argument that the principles of TQM must be
strictly followed comes “dangerously close to viewing it as the ‘one best way’ of
managing” (Spencer, 1994, p. 451). Such an insistence on the adherence to a set of
principles uncovers a “recessive gene” in TQM, and the notion that TQM represents a
fundamental split from the prescriptions of classical theory (Dean and Bowen, 1994;
Dean and Evans, 1994; Spencer, 1994) would thus be undermined.
Indeed, seeing the implementation of TQM as “shifting sands” allows the debate to
move from viewing observed differences in applied TQM as pathologies, towards
viewing the nature of the difference as an evolutionary subject of study in its own
right. In other words, a mechanistic or organic implementation of TQM is not
evaluated as either “good” or “bad”. It is the difference, in itself, that is seen as
important.
References
Barker, J. (1993), “Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 408-37.
Beyer, J., Ashmos, D. and Osborn, R. (1997), “Contrasts in enacting TQM: mechanistic vs organic
ideology and implementation”, Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 3-39.
Bounds, G., Yorks, L., Adams, M. and Ranney, G. (1994), Beyond Total Quality Management:
Toward the Emerging Paradigm, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Dean, J. and Bowen, D. (1994), “Management theory and total quality: improving research and
practice through theory development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 392-418.
Dean, J. and Evans, J. (1994), Total Quality: Management, Organization and Strategy, West
Publishing Co., St Paul, MN.
De Cock, C. and Hipkin, I. (1997), “TQM and BPR: beyond the beyond myth”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 659-75.
Deming, W.E. (1982), Productivity and Competitive Position, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering, Cambridge, MA.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for
Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.
Easton, G.S. and Jarrell, S.L. (1998), “The effects of total quality management on corporate Organic or
performance: an empirical investigation”, The Journal of Business, Vol. 71 No. 2,
pp. 253-307. mechanistic?
Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H. and Worthington, F. (2001), “Power control and resistance in ‘the
factory that time forgot’”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1053-79.
Hackman, R. and Wageman, R. (1995), “Total quality management: empirical, conceptual and
practical issues”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 317-42. 741
Hendricks, K.M. and Singhal, V.R. (2001), “Long run stock price performance of firms with
effective TQM programs”, Management Science, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 359-68.
Hussey, J. and Hussey, L. (1997), Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and
Postgraduate Students, Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Juran, J.M. (1991), “Strategies for world-class quality”, Quality Progress, March, pp. 81-5.
Korukonda, A., Watson, J. and Rajkumar, T. (1999), “Beyond teams and empowerment:
a counterpoint to two common precepts in TQM”, SAM Advanced Management Journal,
Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 29-37.
Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A. and Ledford, G.E. (1992), Employee Involvement and Total Quality
Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A. and Ledford, G.E. (1995), Creating High Performance
Organizations: Practices and Results of Employee Involvement and Total Quality
Management in Fortune 1000 Companies, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Martin, J. (1990), “Breaking up mono-method monopolies in organizational research”, in Hassard, J.
and Pym, D. (Eds), The Theory and Philosophy of Organizations: Critical Issues and New
Perspectives, Routledge, London, pp. 30-43.
Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed.,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Miller, W.J. (1996), “A working definition for total quality management (TQM) researchers”,
Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 149-59.
Morgan, G. (1997), Images of Organization, 2nd ed, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980), “The case for qualitative research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 491-500.
Powell, T. (1995), “Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical
study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Reed, R., Lemak, D.J. and Mero, N.P. (2000), “Total quality management and sustainable
competitive advantage”, Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5-26.
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. and Swartz, E. (1998), Doing Research in Business and
Management, Sage, London.
Robbins, S. and Barnwell, N. (1998), Organization Theory: Concepts and Cases, 3rd ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Sydney.
Ross, J.E. (1993), Total Quality Management: Text, Cases and Readings, St Lucie Press, Delray
Beach, FL.
Shafritz, J. and Ott, J. (1994), Classics of Organization Theory, 4th ed., Harcourt Brace and
Company, Orlando, FL.
Spencer, B. (1994), “Models of organization and total quality management: a comparison and
critical evaluation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 446-71.
Walton, M. (1989), The Deming Management Method, 2nd ed., Mercury Books, London.
IJQRM Walton, M. (1990), Deming Management at Work, G.P. Putnam and Sons, New York, NY.
23,7 Wilkinson, A. and Willmott, H. (1995), “Introduction”, in Wilkinson, A. and Willmott, H. (Eds),
Making Quality Critical: New Perspectives on Organizational Change, Routledge, London,
pp. 1-32.
Wilkinson, A., Redman, T. and Snape, E. (1995), “New patterns of quality management in the
United Kingdom”, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 37-51.
742 Zbaracki, M. (1998), “The rhetoric and reality of total quality management”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 602-36.
About the authors

Brad Moore lectures in the School of Law and Justice in the Faculty of Business and Law at Edith
Cowan University (ECU) in Perth, Western Australia. Prior to becoming an academic, he was a
senior manager for a large nationwide engineering supply company. Mr Moore’s research
interests include commercial law issues, human resource management and quality management.
Alan Brown is Foundation Professor of Management at ECU and Director of the Small and
Medium Enterprise Research Centre (SMERC). He has served in management positions including
Head of School and Dean of the Faculty of Business and Public Management. He has extensive
experience in teaching and research in management areas and has undertaken consultancy work
for a variety of public and private sector clients. He has published widely in international
journals and presented papers (including keynotes) at national and international conferences in
areas of quality management and human resource management. His areas of specialisation
include quality management, human resource management and small business management.
Brad Moore is the corresponding author and can be contacted at e-mail: b.moore@ecu.edu.au
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Muhammad Asif, Henk J. de Vries. 2015. Creating ambidexterity through quality management. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 26:11-12, 1226-1241. [CrossRef]
2. Alan Brown School of Business, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia . 2014. Organisational
paradigms and sustainability in excellence. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 6:2/3,
181-190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Dr Alexander Douglas Alan Brown School of Management, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup,
Australia . 2013. Quality: where have we come from and what can we expect?. The TQM Journal 25:6,
585-596. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Professor Nelson Oly NdubisiErik BjurströmMälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden. 2012. Minding the
contexts of mindfulness in quality management. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
29:6, 699-713. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Muhammad AsifSchool of Management and Governance, University of Twente, Enschede,The

Netherlands Erik Joost de BruijnSchool of Management and Governance, University of Twente,
Enschede,The Netherlands Alex DouglasLiverpool Business School, Liverpool John Moores University,
Liverpool, UK Olaf A.M. FisscherSchool of Management and Governance, University of Twente,
Enschede,The Netherlands. 2009. Why quality management programs fail. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management 26:8, 778-794. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2the Application of TQM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2the Application of TQM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

The application of TQM: organic or mechanistic?

References: this document contains references to 34 other documents.

Organic and mechanistic approaches to TQM

Dimension Mechanistic model Organic model

Organizational goals Efficiency/performance goals Organizational survival (requires

improvement of products and services (Deming, 1982), and to devise a

examined aspects of the implementation of TQM as a social construction. On the other

raison d’etre, convincingly showed strong organic propensities.

Role and nature of environment

understanding the requirements and consequences of the implementation of TQM in

Philosophy toward change

little or no change reflected by the mechanistic model is to be expected.

wisdom of consultants, at the expense of any mechanistic predilections of participants.

Research and managerial implications

About the authors

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

5. Muhammad AsifSchool of Management and Governance, University of Twente, Enschede,The

You might also like