What is TQM? Total Quality Management is a management style based upon producing quality service as defined by the customer.

TQM is defined as a quality-centered, customer-focused, factbased, team-driven, senior-management-led process to achieve an organizations strategic imperative through continuous process improvement. TQM principles are also known as total quality improvement, world class quality, continuous quality improvement, total service quality, and total quality leadership. The word "total" in Total Quality Management means that everyone in the organization must be involved in the continuous improvement effort, the word "quality" shows a concern for customer satisfaction, and the word "management" refers to the people and processes needed to achieve the quality. Total Quality Management is not a program; it is a systematic, integrated, and organizational way-of-life directed at the continuous improvement of an organization. It is not a management fad; it is a proven management style used successfully for decades in organizations around the world. TQM is not an end in itself; it is a means to an organizational end. Total Quality Management must not be the primary focus of an organization; it should merely be the means to achieve organizational goals. Total Quality Management differs from other management styles in that it is more concerned with quality during production than it is with the quality of the result of production. Other management styles have different concerns. Some major styles are compared with TQM as follows. Management-by-Objectives (MBO) emphasizes achieving specified objectives, under the control of individual managers. This approach works against multi-functional process performance and interferes with teamwork and quality. TQM is not objective-oriented, except for its one goal of achieving continuous quality improvement. Management-by-Results (MBR) is management by viewing past results as an indication of future results. It has been compared to driving an automobile in a forward direction while looking in the rear view mirror. In todays fast-paced, quick-changing business environment, managers cannot rely on past results as a predictor of future performance. In contrast, TQM is only concerned with current results and ways to improve them. Management-by-Exception (MBE) is management by identifying specific targets for management attention and action. It produces short-term results by reacting to immediate problems, but there is no analysis of the processes that produced the problems, so longterm benefits are lost. On the other hand, TQM is more concerned with correcting processes that produce problems than it is with responding to individual problems. Total Quality Management is very different from these and other management systems. It recognizes that quality as determined by the service provider might be much different from quality as perceived by the service receiver. If the customer is not satisfied with a service, then the service does not have quality and the processes that produced the service have failed. Total Quality Management requires an organizational transformation-a totally new and different way of thinking and behaving. This transformation is not easy to achieve; it is not

for the weak or the statistically untrained. At first glance, many TQM techniques may seem simple and based on common sense, but they must be understood and used correctly for TQM to function properly. Knowing the history of Total Quality Management may help in understanding its techniques. Disadvantages of TQM Some Total Quality Management detractors have noted that long-range plans advocated by TQM may limit an organizations flexibility and agility. TQM teaches that a long-term plan is required to achieve a complete quality transformation, but a long-term plan that has been pursued for a long period may become an end unto itself. Completion of the plan becomes the ultimate goal. Objectives the plan was designed to accomplish are forgotten; achieving the transformation becomes the most important objective. Instead of maintaining continuous change, the organization may reach a stable point and stagnate. To produce continuously high quality services, an organization must react quickly to changes in the community and not be restricted by its management style. TQM detractors also argue that although Total Quality Management calls for organizational change, it does not demand radical organizational reform. Real quality improvement requires radical structural change, such as flattening organizational structures. It requires liberation of employees from stifling control systems and the tyranny of functionalism, both of which stifle teamwork. Total Quality Management calls for the elimination of the goals and objectives required by Management-by-Objectives. Critics of TQM claim that this may negatively affect motivation. They claim that having established production goals gives employees increasingly higher goals to reach, which motivates them to find new ways to reach the goals. When there are no established production goals, some employees will only produce the minimum required to keep their job. Some maintain that Total Quality Management delegates the determination of quality to quality experts rather than to "real" people. TQM claims that quality is a complicated entity that is beyond the average employee to comprehend without specialized training in statistical techniques. It takes what is common sense to the ordinary worker and makes it sound complicated by changing the name and dressing it up with technical language. Total Quality Management calls for the elimination of performance assessments that rate employees in relation to each other. Critics fear that without performance assessment managers would have too much power over employees and may be use it capriciously. Many managers feel performance assessments let them document employee performance for possible reward, but some employees fear the assessments might be used against them in some disciplinary actions. Performance assessments may give employees with grievances the documentation they need to prove managers are treating them unfairly. Without them, managers could make unfair accusations about an employees performance and the employee would not have the documentation to counter the claims. Some argue that the claims of success by TQM supporters are not supported by facts but by anecdotes and stories. They argue that TQM proponents tell heart-warming stories about how teamwork makes everyone happy, but that they cannot back up their claims with hard data.

Critics maintain that TQM focuses manager attention on internal processes rather than on external results. When this is taken to an extreme, managers may become too preoccupied with internal issues, such as the documentation required by TQM methods, and ignore the shifting perceptions of customers. Managers become so concerned with the process of TQM that they neglect the needs of the customer, which was the initial reason for implementing TQM. Total Quality Management calls for its implementation to be immediate and complete. Some contend it does not make sense to try to create quality improvement in the entire organization from the very beginning. They argue that all processes are not equally good or bad, all departments do not function equally well, and all services do not measure up to the same quality standard. Because of this, they contend that quality should be introduced incrementally and only in the specific areas that need it most. Some critics claim Total Quality Managements focus on setting and maintaining standards makes work life unexciting and boring. When employees are bored, their poor attitudes may cause customer dissatisfaction with the quality of service received from them. In addition, when too much emphasis is placed on standardization it precludes the constant internal changes needed to keep up with external changes. Total Quality Management develops its own bureaucracy. TQM detractors contend its statistical burden and committee structure is cumbersome, slows organizational momentum, and consumes too much time and resources. Opponents of Total Quality Management maintain that it appeals to egotism. After receiving some TQM training, some employees consider themselves TQM "experts" who have the answers to everyone elses problems. They claim their department is doing everything right according to TQM principles and find fault with every other department. Some managers, instead of viewing achievement as a joint effort where every participant deserves praise, apply for awards for self-gratification or to benefit the organizations public relations image. Some detractors posit that TQM is an emotionally cold way to manage people. Its analytical, detached programs are often devoid of human emotion that inspires attachment to the organization and its customers. Total Quality Management calls for a cultural transformation. Some argue it creates a process-crazed organization, similar to a cult, where the impression is that only total commitment to TQM can save the organization from ruin. Just as in a cult, all the decisions in TQM are related to the "vision." No one wants to claim individual credit for success; instead, success is attributed to the TQM philosophy. Results become less important than performing the proper TQM techniques. Just as in a cult, periodic evangelism by TQM experts is used to maintain a missionary zeal for TQM. If an employee is not a TQM believer, he or she considered an outcast who does not care about the organizations success. Even with its problems, Total Quality Management may still be the best choice as a successor to the militaristic, authoritative management style.