Total Quality Management in Manufacturing and Service Organizations - Literature review Example

TQM in Manufacturing/Service Organizations Introduction The process of management always involves planning, organizing, leading and controlling activities. It does not consist of a single act. Management in general is cyclical and repetitive. It involves linear process on which it has a start and an end and it always considers the planning, organizing, leading, and controlling functions within the project duration. More so, management is a complex process whereby all resources within an organization are to be effectively utilized through proper planning, organizing, leading, and controlling in order to achieve organizational goal. It is for this reason that the importance of highlighting the total quality management in accompany, more particularly in a manufacturing and service-oriented organization, becomes necessary. Related Literature Organizational Structure The employees are one of the biggest weapons of the company. They are the workers who ensure that the company is working right on target and the customers are satisfied with what the company is offering. This is the very reason why the organization sees to it that all the staffs are equipped with the right armament to keep them competitive and effective in their respective responsibilities. The firm’s organizational structure reflects how people or employees interact with each other, how communication flows in and out the company, and how power relationships are defined between the management and the workers. It is by this reason why an organizational analysis is considered as the value-based choices made by the company (Wernerfelt, 1995). Needless to say, the organizational structure tells exactly how the jobs and responsibilities in the firm are formally divided; how different value orientations of organizations influence structure; and what are the importance of achieving high levels of production and efficiency by using formal procedures, centralized authority, direct supervision, and specialized labor (Wernerfelt, 1995). Some of the most important facets of an organizational analysis is the ability to highlight (Wernerfelt, 1995): • Quality values that are involved by which the importance of maintaining high quality standards has been communicated to all employees and adopted throughout the organization. • Information and analysis which include the scope, validity, use, and management of data and information that support the quality management system, and are being done by the enablers – the human resource which are the most integral part of any organization. • The utilization of human resource utilization in a way that the full potential of each and every employee has been utilized. In the same manner, all employees are enjoined or being motivated to involve in teamwork production system, and in which quality education and training programs are in place for all employees. • Quality assurance approaches used by the organization and maintained by the human resource to assure the high quality of goods and services based on process design and control, and the assimilation of process control with continuous quality improvement. • Lastly, the knowledge of customer which ensure the organization's knowledge and ability to meet the requirements and expectations of internal and external customers Thus, in any organizational analysis undertaking, the ultimate goal is always to ensure continuum sustainability and competitive advantage of the company by ensuring that the employees – supervisors and subordinates – are providing and receiving feedbacks necessary for their continuum performance. Role of the Managers Managers cannot be classified as a standardized group (Mintzberg, 1980), this only means that their role expectations vary and/or depends on different situations. However, there are specific classifications of the roles that most managers do. However big or small the organization they belong with, their roles usually fall under these classifications. These include (1) interpersonal roles (leader, liaison, and figurehead), (2) informational roles (disseminator, monitor, and spokesperson), and (3) decisional roles (disturbance handler, entrepreneur, negotiator, and resource allocator). It should be noted that managers at different hierarchical levels place different emphases on the roles in such a way that there can be differences in the perceived importance of each of the role orientations and can be influenced by hierarchical level (Mintzberg, 1980). Patricia Buhler (1998) on the other hand has a more generalized view on the roles of the managers. According to her, because it is very evident that the economic trend nowadays are changing speedily, it is also evident that structures of the many businesses also changed, thereby affecting and also altering the roles of the workers. Needless to say, the roles of the managers have also changed to adapt with the changing times. It was suggested in Buhler’s article (1998) that there are four primary functions of the managers: planning, controlling, directing and staffing. From the very beginning that organizational hierarchy and/or structure was introduced, this has been the managerial functions that is being followed, only not, there are some touch of modernization added to it. Managers have always been tasked to take part in planning to and for the company. Not so long ago, it was believed this planning varied by organizational level. That is, top management planned in the longest time horizon and engaged in more strategic planning. Middle managers planned in a medium time horizon and lower level managers engaged in more operational planning that was shorter term. Today, however, all managers are being asked to engage in strategic planning. The responsibilities for strategic management are being delegated down the organizational pyramid with all managers responsible for taking a long-term view of the organization (Buhler, 1998). In terms of staffing, managers are expected to man directly and see to it the right person is placed in the right job within the organization. This staffing responsibility today also involves ensuring the person-job-organization fit is made. This means that managers are not only concerned with staffing the position with the right person, but also ensuring the person "fits" with the organization taking into account organizational culture. Two decades ago this fit was not part of the staffing decision-making process. Today, however, it is recognized certain personality types fit better with specific organizational types (Buhler, 1998). Controlling has always been the responsibility of the managers. Control today is tied to technology. The role of control has been changed with the technological advancements. Some of the control has even been "replaced" with computers, as they monitor employee performance on jobs that was once monitored by human managers. The role of control has also been reexamined from an ethical perspective. That is, employees do not want to be controlled and the move is toward self-control on the part of employees (Buhler, 1998). Directing function is the last, but certainly not the least important role that managers do. It is the manager's responsibility to determine the one best way to perform the job and the worker's responsibility was to perform the job in that one best way. The manager, then, directed the employee in how to perform the job. Much of the decision making was removed from the employee's hands. However, it should also be noted that managers should also engage themselves in coaching and mentoring rather than just the traditional directing (Buhler, 1998). Quality Management Three findings may be highlighted from a research done by Dawn Edwards (2005). First, on the "focus" side: becoming a customer-led organization raises the debate from turf battles to teamwork; customers or markets are often useful guides precisely because they transcend the corporation's existing functional boundaries and allow teams to analyze opportunities and allocate resources objectively. Second, if the focus is correctly adjusted--through strategic simplicity, relentless prioritization of the questions that matter most, and the alignment of the organization's resources to actual needs--then the benefits are substantial. This internal cultural change will in turn drive innovation, improve transactional speed, and produce substantive results. Third, cultural change is fundamentally a collective, collegial exercise in which sensitivity to the particularities of context is all-important. No single approach will be effective in all circumstances. Yet if success is a matter of shared responsibility, it would be naive to suggest that responsibility is shared equally. In instigating the process of re-assessment and managing the dynamic tension that results from initiating reforms--determining the point where countervailing forces are counterpoised most beneficially and creatively--there remains a role, albeit a heavily modified one, for "heroic" leadership. Personal courage is inevitably required to inaugurate (and maintain) any process of change management, not least because a decision to retain the status quo, or to resist calls to change course, often seems the easiest and least risky management decision. While change for change's sake can often be a spurious substitute for properly focused leadership, the avoidance of change can be equally culpable: the result of either timidity or complacency, and the very opposite of effective leadership. However, once a properly informed decision has been made as to the need for change--usually a moment that requires individual leadership--the paradox is that, when it comes to implementation, "leadership" is fundamentally a group exercise. Leaders are constantly asking the seemingly unreasonable by requesting that individual team members make a total personal commitment to a particular program of action in the context of a future that is predominantly uncertain (Kacena, 2002). The needs of organizations feature strongly in workplace learning approaches, however, individual, subjective issues such as attitudes, commitment, motivation and self-image, have been included as these are particularly important for any successful learning. People will only adopt new ideas, knowledge or skills if they are interested in learning, or find some benefit for themselves in doing so. Understanding the relationship between inputs, outputs and outcomes will assist in harnessing the involvement of individuals in the learning process. Clearly workplace learning can address many of the current and future needs of managers and leaders, and can take many forms--both formal and informal. However, it is not something that can be done overnight; but a long-term commitment by both the organization and the individual. As organizations begin to see the benefits of workplace learning activities they will become increasingly committed to developing more focused programmes to meet their specific organizational needs, which will help to maintain the momentum (Kaydo, 2000). A long-standing method of transferring knowledge and understanding within an organizational setting, that has stood the test of time, is mentoring. The perception of mentoring is as varied as the concept of the mentor. This is a reflection of both concept differences, and participant expectations. Spencer (1996:5) described mentoring as 'a relationship which gives people the opportunity to share their professional and personal skills and experiences, and to grow and develop in the process'. Many organizations have recognized that much of the learning and development of employees does not take place within the boundaries of traditional learning situations. Wallis (1998:15) argued that there is a "need for the organizational information, methods and culture to be transferred to other members of the workplace", and this 'learning transfer' could best be addressed through the use of mentoring with its techniques of guided and assisted learning. The benefits to be derived from mentoring are diverse and have both short and long-term impacts on the employee and the organization. The value of a given outcome and its impact (direct/indirect; short/long-term) will vary, and will be dependent upon the organization’s strategy (Carmin, 1988). Changes in technology and economics are altering the way people live and relate. A global culture made possible through the ease of communications and travel leads to greater interaction between people and places. Global economic systems now transcend national boundaries and trading blocs - we expect ready access to use credit cards and banking facilities wherever people are present (Kacena, 2002). The impact of globalization in the world city goes beyond the towers of concrete and glass to the lives of those who live in its shadow. The global dimension of the contemporary city sets new challenges as new technologies and communications create new patterns of social life. This is true not just for the business world and the affluent but also for the poor, particularly for minorities whose communities now stretch beyond limited geographical ghettos (Greenberg, 1998). Goold and Campbell (1987) found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that ideal corporate management implicitly integrates leadership and management. They concluded that "virtually all executives want strong leadership from the center, coordinated strategies that build in a variety of view points, careful analysis of decisions, long-term thinking and flexibility. But they also want autonomy for unit managers, clear accountability, the freedom to respond entrepreneurially to opportunities, superior short-term results, and tight controls." The problem is that these two sets of desiderata contain mutually competing, if not mutually contradictory, demands on the leader-manager. Thus, as business dynamics and contexts change, corporate leaders must adapt themselves fundamentally in order to maintain an effective integration of the leadership and management roles, and some form of equilibrium between the simultaneous expectations held of them: of strong central direction coexisting with unit-level autonomy; and of central long-term strategic thinking coexisting with a measure of tactical flexibility and freedom of action among subordinates. Due to the constant change in an increasingly complex business environment learning in the workplace is a crucial part of any organizations planning and development strategies (Boswell, 1995 and Howell, 1995). Life-long learning, the continuous up dating of skills and qualifications, must become the norm, not the exception. Support for these ideas has been seen in a number of recent policies in Australia, designed to improve the skills of the workforce and decrease the growing skills gap; particularly the Mayer Report (1992) into the development of key competencies and competency based training. If organizations are seriously "interested in developing the true capacity of its people" (Rylatt, 1994:15) they must be prepared to closely examine their existing policies, systems and activities to determine whether they are supporting or inhibiting workplace learning. Any industry/workplace wishing to introduce a new attitude to learning in the workplace will face an enormous challenge in convincing individuals, teams, and organizations of the importance of workplace learning for their future, and gaining their true commitment. Mentoring has been widely recognized as a valuable method for staff development, transmission of corporate culture, and socialization (Mathews, 2005). A properly designed mentoring programme can be a useful, structured way to communicate, and transfer information related to the expectations of different management approaches to new and existing employees. Whilst it is only one method of facilitating learning in the workplace, it is designed to make use of guided learning to develop the knowledge and skills required for high performance in the workplace (Tovey, 1999:5), and can be geared to the specific requirements of any organization at any time. It focuses on helping an individual to assess their experiences, and strengths and weaknesses, and provides guidance and support to enable them to make the most of opportunities (Appelbaum, 2000). Mentoring has been used by many organizations to address a variety of issues and problems associated with equal employment opportunity, high turnover, commitment, job satisfaction, and employee diversity to name a few. Competencies encompass clusters of skills, knowledge, abilities, and behaviors required for people to succeed. In this case, it refers to success across the jobs in the workplace learning and performance field. The new workplace learning and performance competency model includes business/management, interpersonal competencies and personal competencies. These competencies are desirable regardless of an individual's area of expertise (specialization) or role though not all workplace learning and performance practitioners will need each of them to the same extent. Interpersonal competencies include building trust, communicating effectively, influencing stakeholders, leveraging diversity, and networking and partnering. In business/management competencies it includes analyzing needs and proposing solutions, applying business acumen, driving results, planning and implementing assignments, and thinking strategically. On the other hand personal competencies include demonstrating adaptability, and modeling personal development where actively identifying new areas for one's own personal learning; regularly creating and taking advantage of learning opportunities; applying newly gained knowledge and skill on the job (Shapiro, 1999). A long-standing method of transferring knowledge and understanding within an organizational setting, that has stood the test of time, is mentoring. The perception of mentoring is as varied as the concept of the mentor. This is a reflection of both concept differences, and participant expectations. Spencer (1996:5) described mentoring as 'a relationship which gives people the opportunity to share their professional and personal skills and experiences, and to grow and develop in the process'. More comprehensive definitions have been presented by Carmin (1988) and Appelbaum (2000:19). These more closely reflect the complex nature of the mentoring process. Conclusion Total Quality Management (TQM) is a shared responsibility of the managers and of the enablers. To ensure that everything is falling into the right and proper places, managers need to strive very hard to commit themselves in the achievement of the company’s goals. Managers’ first specific key responsibility is to ensure that the products and/or services are delivered at the right time, in the right manner and at the right price to its intended consumer (Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment). They must ensure that the client will be greatly satisfied with the product or service and with the way it was delivered to him/her. However, it should not be expected that it will be the manager himself who will go personally to the customer, and deliver the product or service or accept the payment. His responsibility will be to assign the personnel who have the capability to provide the needed product or service and monitor this personnel’s performance. This specific key responsibility will be slightly different depending on the size of the organization. In smaller companies, manager can still be the person who will deliver and provide the needed service or product for the customer. Her will personally assist the customer and ensure that he/she receives what she needed. In smaller companies, the manager can also assign one person to deliver or provide the product or service, but it will be the first-line manager’s sole responsibility to monitor if the service or product was delivered in the proper context. Usage of Resources Managers have the power and the control to utilize the resources of the company to achieve its goals (Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment). He can assess whether the company will benefit greatly if a particular resource will be allocated and/or used or not. Because of this, the managers can request for replenishment of supplies for the company and he, too, can utilize them whenever he deems it necessary for the business and for the people. Work Unit Plans Managers are particularly responsible for the development and implementation of work unit plans (Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment). The plans will have to be aligned with the company’s vision and mission. It will be the firs-line managers’ task to make sure that each work unit’s plans are set and are properly executed. To ensure proper execution, it will also be the managers’ responsibility to evaluate if the plans are achieved in the desired fashion. Information Gathering and Analysis Managers are also expected to gather information and analyze it for the company’s benefit (Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment). Information that is needed by the company may be about the competition, the market and market trends as well as the movement of the economy relative to the company’s performance and growth. Work Priorities and Professional Development As managers they are responsible to manage personal work priorities and set room for professional development (Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment). They are to make sure that work assignments are given to the right personnel taking into consideration the strengths and comp entices if each and every personnel. At the same time, managers need to ensure that wages are given accordingly and salary appraisals are available whenever needed. Innovation and Change Managers are the very first persons who are expected to promote innovation and change for the company (Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment). They are to make sure that the ever changing requirements of the industry and of the target market are addressed to. To do this, changes and innovations are necessary from time to time. References: Atkinson, J. 1985. 'The Changing Corporation.' New Patterns of Work. D. Clutterbuck, ed. UK: Gower Publishing Company. Beder, S, 2001, 'Selling the Work Ethic', Australian Rationalist 55, Spring 2001, pp. 8-13. Buhler, Patricia. 1998. “A new role for managers: the move from directing to coaching.” National Research Bureau Cappeli, P, 1999, The New Deal at Work. Managing the Market-Driven Workforce. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Cappelli P., 1995, ‘Rethinking employment’, British Journal of Industrial Relations (UK),vol. 33, no. 4. Francis, M., P. Lindsey, and J.S. Rice eds. (1994) The Healing Dimensions of People-Plant Relations. Davis, CA: University of California, Center for Design Research. Kacena, J.F. 2002, "New leadership directions", The journal of business strategy, Vol.23, (3), 21-23. Kaydo, C.2000. "The new skills of top managers", Sales and marketing management, Vol. 152, (5), 16. Leakey, R. and R. Lewin (1995) The Sixth Great Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Future of Mankind. New York: Doubleday. London, M. and Beatty, R. 1993. "360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive Advantage." Human Resource Management, 32 (2 and 3): 213. London, M. and Smither, J. 1995. "Can Multi-source Feedback Change Perceptions of Goal Accomplishment, Self-evaluations, and Performance-related Outcomes? Theory Based Application and Directions for Research." Personnel Psychology, 48: 803-840. London, M. and Wohlers, A. 1991. "Agreement Between Subordinate and Self-ratings in Upward Feedback." Personnel Psychology, 44: 375. London, Manuel. 1997. Job Feedback: Giving, Seeking, and Using Feedback for Performance Improvement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Place of Publication: Mahwah, NJ. Publication London, Manuel. 2003. Job Feedback: Giving, Seeking, and Using Feedback for Performance Improvement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Place of Publication: Mahwah, NJ. Publication Managing Image in a Dynamic Corporate Environment. [online] viewed April 11, 2007 Mintzberg, H. 1980. The Nature of Managerial Work. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Moffit, M. & Williams, S. (1997). Corporate Image as an Impression Formation Process: Prioritizing Personal, Organizational, and Environmental Audience Factors. Journal of Public Relations Research. Vol. 9:4. Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. “The South Australian Public Sector: Draft First Line Manager Competency Framework.” Government of South Australia Spencer, C. 1996, Mentoring made easy: a practical guide for managers, Office of the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment, New South Wales Government Publication, Sydney, Australia. Torbert, M., & Schnieder, L.B. (1986). Positive multicultural interaction: Using low organized games. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 57(7), 40-44. Wernerfelt, B. 1995. The resource based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 171-174. Williams, Pat. (2005). The Seven Keys to Unlocking Leadership Potential Excerpted from Coaching Your Kids to Be Leaders: The Keys to Unlocking Their Potential Read More