Issues & Observations: Vol. 12, No. 3,1992 5 Center for Creative Leadership

Leadership in the Quest for Quality Elizabeth Holmes

With competitive pressures increasing almost daily, organizations of all kinds- public and private, profit and nonprofit- are currently struggling with the issue of quality: the need to offer the best possible products and services in the most efficient ways possible. Many organizations have recently begun major efforts to implement procedures and processes (often referred to as total quality management, or TQM) that will assure quality, and many others are about to begin such efforts or are seriously considering doing so.

We at the Center are, of course, interested in the leadership component of implementing quality. In order to learn more about it, and to gain information that could be used in the development of an appropriate leadership training program, we recently put together a team, which I am leading, to study organizations engaged in the quality process. The activities of the team have included hosting a conference this past March and, since then, conducting focus groups and doing interviews. In this article I would like to briefly report on some of the things we have learned.

Making Quality Work We have found that many companies, after two to four years of initial training in TQM, are having problems. There is a decrease in enthusiasm for the quality effort; some even wonder if it is worth continuing. Response to it varies at different levels in the organi- zation. Most notably, it is not uncommon for people to be frustrated by what they see as senior management’s failure to support it in more than words. In management jargon, senior management is failing to “walk its talk.”

Such problems are serious, but they need not be fatal. In our view, they can be dealt with by understanding three key aspects of the implementation of TQM-the rate of change, the stages of change, and the integration of a quality philosophy into the culture of the organization-and then by exercising appropriate leadership with respect to each.

Rate of Change Many people in companies that have

been implementing TQM for two to four years feel that change is coming too slowly. This is partly the result of unreasonable

expectations. Effective, permanent changes do not typically come about quickly in organizations. One important leadership activity, therefore, is to keep people informed about what rate of change can be realistically achieved. TQM is not a quick- fix.

however, may also be the result of ineffec- tive support for the quality effort. Because people, in general, resist change, it is important that they understand why it is necessary.

are certainly aware of this, and we found that they were making a real effort to moti- vate people to adopt quality processes. I suspect, however, that the effort is often not successful because it is carried out in terms that do not seem immediately relevant to people. For example, many companies speak to the importance of the bottom line, emphasizing factors such as global competi- tion. But if employees do not see positive, immediate, and certain connections between their work and the company’s bottom line, the impact of that as a motivator is greatly reduced.

Similarly, a company may attempt to motivate people by saying that their adopting a quality process will be the difference between the company’s surviv- ing or going under: If the company can’t compete, it will fail. The problem with such an approach often is that the possibility of a company folding as a result of to compete is seen as a future and uncertain event. Thus, it does little to provide a forceful incentive; people tend to minimize or avoid uncomfortable possibilities, particularly if they are “some time” in the future and not imminent.

clear connection must be made between, on the one hand, a person’s actions and, on the other, outcomes that are of immediate importance to him or her. This will encourage intrinsic motivators such as pride in good work, a clear sense of the impact of one’s actions, and a clear sense of the purpose of one’s contributions. This, in turn, can be supported by recognition and appreciation of each person’s ideas, efforts, and courage (in taking risks). All of these may affect individuals at work, motivating them to work harder to support the

The feeling that change is too slow,

The companies we have worked with

inability

For maximum motivational effect, a

The term total quality managemenr was coined in 1985 by the Naval Air Systems Command, but I t has been used in connection with numerous efforts, many which trace their roots as far back as World War 11, to improve the quality of products and services offered by organizations. There are, therefore, many definitions of TQM. (There are, in addition, hfferent perceptions about how new and useful it is: Is it old wine in new bottles? If so, is it still a powerful conceptual intervention?) Marshall Sashkin and Kenneth J. Kiser. h a book that aims to provide practitioners with an overview of the concept, offer the following definition: “TQM means that the organizalion’s culture is defined by and supports the constant attainment of customer satisfaction t h ~ ~ u g h an integrated system of tools, techniques. and training. This involves the continu- ous improvement of organizational processes, resulting in high quality products and services” (Total Quality Management, Ducochon Press. 1991, page 25). They also suggest that there are three important aspects of TQU. (1) counting-tools, techniques, and

training in their use for analyzing, understanding, and solving quality problems; (2) customers-+pality for the customer as a driving force and central concern; and (3) culture- shared values and beliefs, expressed by leaders, t h l define and support quality

TQM, in its various forms with (page 3).

different elements and emphases. will no doubt continue to evolve as organi- zations confront the issue of quality and as they revisit the question of the relationship between leadership and culture.

company’s quality objectives. The differ- ence between these types of motivational factors and discussions of the bottom line and competition, for many people, is the difference that makes a difference.

The Stages of Change One of the ways we gathered informa-

tion at the conference and at one of the focus groups was by conducting a maturity self-assessment. We asked those attending to rate, using their own criteria, the level of maturity they believed their organizations had achieved with respect to the quality

~ ~ ~~ ~

I\\UPY & Obrervations: l’ol 12, Vo. 3. 1992 6 Center for Creative Leadership _ _ _ - _ _

process. We used a scale of 1 10 5-with 1 representing an ”infant” and 5 a “senior citixn.“ We then asked them to discuss the characteristics of their organizations that led to their individual choices. Based on these two small samples (thirteen organizations were represented at the conference and fifteen at the focus group). a pattern seems to be emerging that suggests that there arc stages of growth in the implementation procesh with identifiable characteristics for each stage (see the accompan!.ing chart).

rhe matunty self-assessment. Although some of the factors listed under a given level of maturity also exist at other levels. and none are all-inclusive. these are the key points we have identified so far.

I t ia significant to note that although some of the companies represented have heen involved in TQM much longer than four years. no one thinks his or her organi- zation is at level 5 .

This finding suggests that leadership efforts can be more effectivel) focused by taking into consideration the organization’s current stage of TQM implementation. In fact. our work with organizations undertak- ing TQM has convinced ua that implemen- tation and integration of quality processes is a process in and of itself.

The chart summarizes the findings of

Integrating Total Quality

integration of total qua’ity to be a process. then it follows that the process can be analyzed and improved upon, just as a production or service process can. The challenge of this perspective is that there is no standard for how the quality implemen- tation process should work for a given organization. Although there are certainly guidelines and various .lumbers of “steps” that map out the product or service im- provement process, organizations are learning that the map is not the territory. That is. each organization has the unique task of creating the best process for itself.

A key to that effon. is to identify the specific ways that companies can learn as they go. One company *e talked to learned that it had to rethink what priorities it was communicating on a bulletin board showing quality progress. The original order of the charts showed financial results before improvements in other facets of the business. In a not-so-su btle way, the order of the charts communicated a set of priorities that were in conflict with other messages senior managzment was attempt- ing to send.

The company’s senior management had to closely examine their behaviors, both

If we consider the implementation and organizational and individual, so that the process of integrating quality into the culture could be improved. Intention is not sufficient. When the executives at our conference complained that senior manage- ment does not “walk its talk,” they ‘were not talking about senior management’s intentions. They believed senior manage- ment was, in fact, committed to total quality. They were saying that senior management’s intentions and their behav- iors were incongruent.

If we look at integration of quality as a process, a normal pan of that process would be to examine the results of our actions closely, learn from them, and make the appropriate changes. For senior manage- ment, this means taking a look at them- selves and seeing what changes they personally need to make, to get the results they want. They must, as Michael Jackson says in his song, start with “the man in the mirror. If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make the change.”

Conclusion One thing that is clear to me from the conference and subsequent client meetings and focus groups is that these companies are doing everything they know to make

Source of Pressure to Implement TQM

Employee Perceptions

Ownership of the Process

Evidence of Resistance

Obseriable Responses

Critical Tasks

STAGES IN ESTABLISHMENT OF QUALITY PROCESSES

Stages 1 and 2 Stage 3

Ti)p management.

I h i < too shall pa>\ ‘’ Fad of ihz month

Pockzts of enthusiastic \upporters. Early adopters.

\\ idespread Wait-dnd-see ,:pproach

1.1 u>tration. Pockets of acti\,ity ,&oilnter to existing culture.

Idriitif? ing appropriate L h~riipions

Top mana,, xement

Quality is an extra-curricular activity. not integxted into daily work pro- cesses.

Increasingly senior management and hourly no-ken.

Middle mznagement is testing the system and retaining former behaviors (e.g.. autocratic). Front-line managers map be fezrful and defensive.

Systemic changes emerging (e.g.. compensation system. performance- appraisal system).

Working on systemic changes. Breaking cown barriers. Clarifying roles.

Stage 4

Top management, with some selling coming from lower levels as well.

Quality as a proiess,&a program Quality as an oberarching goal

q4.

Upper management is committzd in principle but not necessarily in practice. Some local (e.g.. division- level) ownership.

Middle management is confused about roles and expectations.

Rate of change slows. There is more effective utilization of‘ resources.

Building trust. Demonstrating values. “Walking the talk.”

NOTE: Nonc of the orgaiu/biions m e studied assessed themselves as being at stage 5 .

Issues & Observations: Vol. 12, No. 3, I992 7 Center for Creative Leadership

TQM work. There are still many things left to learn. Some of the key questions that we’re asking in our efforts to provide the tools to solve the problems discussed above were raised at the conference:

What is the role senior management is playing in directing and supporting the quality effort?

What is the evidence that there is in fact a constancy of purpose to the quality process? (To what degree do the tough decisions support the purpose?)

What observable changes in form or function take place in the organization?

Where is leadership housed, in the person or in the position? What are the implications for the organization’s quality efforts?

How are power and the authority to make decisions structured in organizations? By expertise or position?

What new leadership processes and practices are required and what is the company doing to learn about and reinforce their effective application?

What would people say if asked to explain the quality objectives and what they mean to them personally?

How able and willing is the work force to accept and effectively manage the additional responsibility-the empower- ment-that a quality effort bestows?

messengers of quality alive and well and making their appointed rounds?

curve and how does deployment of quality values compare?

Each organization must make its own response to these (and other) questions as it seeks to learn, grow, and thrive at the rapid pace demanded today. We at the Center will continue to explore the challenges of leading a quality culture and report periodically on our learnings.

What supports are in place to keep the

What is the company’s typical learning

--- Elizabeth Holmes is a Program

Associate in Innovation and Creativity Applications at the Center.

THE CENTER AND ITS BRANCHES ARE OPEN

from 8 . a a.m. to 500 p.m., Mondaythrough Fnday.

CENTER FOR CREATIVE LEADERSHIF

Issues & Observations

Published by Center for Creative Leadership

One Leadership Place Post Office Box 26300

Greensboro, NC 27438-6300 9 1 9-288-72 10

San Diego, 619-453-4774 Colorado Springs, 719-633-3891

Brussels, (32-2) 34642-01

Walter F. Ulmer, Jr., President and CEO Walter W. Tornow, Vice President,

Research and Publication W. H. Drath, 111, Director of

Publication Editorial Advisory Group

Robert M . Burnside Elizabeth Holmes

Cynthia D. McCauley Leonard R. Sayles

Martin Wilcox, Editor Marcia Horowitz, Associate Editor,

Newsletter Section Ellen Hamman, Editorial Assistant

Joanne Ferguson, Managing Editor, Layout and Design

John McKeithan, Photographer

The Center is an international, nonprofit educational institution founded in 1970 to foster creative leadership and effective management for the good of society overall. As a part of this mission, it encourages a general process of inquiry and understanding in which ideas related to leadership are raised, exchanged, and evaluated. Issues & Observations, in presenting the work of Center staff and associates, provides a sample of the Center’s contribution to this process. The ideas presented here are those of the author or authors.

The Center for Creative Leadership does not discriminate with respect to the admission of students on the basis of race, sex, color, national or ethnic origin, nor does it discriminate on any such basis with respect to its activities, programs, or policies.

01992 Center for Creative Leadership All rights reserved

INSIDE VIEW Walter F. Ulmer, Jr. President and CEO

Efforts to study leadership have always been plagued with the “criterion” problem: What defines leadership? Neither the business nor the academic community has ever been able to agree on a definition. And even if one were agreed upon today, circumstances and social evolution would probably make it less useful tomorrow.

to measure leadership-to objectively evaluate its success or failure. At the Center, most of our discussions of the success and failure of leaders are based on an organizationally derived definition of “success” and “failure,” and these may or may not be a reflection of actual leadership effectiveness, and may or may not be generalizable outside the organizational cultures from which the data were collected.

The challenge of defining and measur- ing leadership is inherent in all of the Center’s work. Perhaps in the midst of our concern for developing evaluative criteria regarding leadership-or, more precisely, our concern about criteria for leader effectiveness in a particular situation-we have neglected a potentially valuable tool. This particular tool stems from assessment- center technology.

Assessment centers in American business life have their origins in World War 11. In 1942 the Army‘s Office of Strategic Services started screening candidates for a variety of wartime intelli- gence assignments (see Assessment of Men, New York: Holt Rinehart, 1948). A number of subsequent research, selection, and development techniques, such as those at AT&T, were derived from the OSS assess- ment operation. Often, assessment-center exercises, regardless of whether they were seen as reliable in predicting success of the candidates, or in providing developmental feedback to them, have been regarded as highly rewarding and worthwhile by those doing the assessing. In the course of making assessments, both line managers and human-resource professionals have been able to refine their criteria for “success” in the organization, and have discovered or reconfirmed the daunting complexities involved in appraising performance.

There are few, if any, training pro- grams designed to enhance the ability of managers to assess the leadership effective-

Without a definition, it is very difficult