Employee Participation and Empowerment Programs - Angelfire

12 Pages·1995·0.05 MB·English

VOLUME 2 NUMBER 2
1994
Employee Participation and
Empowerment Programs
Problems of Definition and Implementation
Carl A. Rodrigues
Introduction satisfaction” and “freedom from product
deficiencies, which avoids customer
The fierce, competitive environment currently
dissatisfaction” (p. 332). The American
existing throughout the globe is forcing many
organizations to transform themselves to a Society of Quality Control supports the term
new paradigm for manufacturing[1], “management of quality” to mean the
including quality assurance[2]. Organizations activities that are generally associated with
are being forced to implement programs quality improvement in the organization[15,
which aim to improve their operations and p. 176]. Built into the TQM concept is the
quality so they can serve their customers notion that all employees in the organization
better than can their competitors[3]. A provide a service, not only to the external
program which many organizations have customer, but to also to their colleagues.
implemented or are attempting to implement Therefore, the customer is anyone for whom a
is total quality management (TQM). The service is rendered – both inside and outside
concept of quality has been discussed by organizational boundaries[8].
numerous writers (e.g.[4,5,6]). The term The Baldrige National Quality Award also
TQM has many meanings. In general, helps to describe TQM. Building on the
however, it means an organization having a quality concept, the Baldrige Award was
long-term commitment to ongoing established in 1987 to provide a systematic
improvement of quality throughout its whole national framework for assessing quality
system, with all employees at all levels in all levels in US companies. Blackburn and
subunits and subsidiaries actively Rosen[16] interviewed executives at
participating[7,8]. organizations which have won the Baldrige
It also means an organization producing Award in order to codify these organizations’
goods and/or services which meet or exceed human resource policies and practices. They
consumers’ expectations at the lowest
identified the following human resource
possible cost[9-13], as well as doing things
practices used by the winners:
right the first time[2]. According to Juran[14],
l mission statements emphasize the
quality consists of two basic dimensions:
achievement of quality through
“product performance that results in customer
committed, empowered employees;
l belief that frequent, honest, and open
Empowerment in Organizations, Vol. 2 No. 2, 1994, pp. 29-40 communication with employees is needed
© MCBUniversity Press, 0968-4891
29
ORGANIZATIONS:
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
to reinforce the quality culture structure. Participative management is a
realignment; encouragement of bottom-up “cover all” term meaning such activities as
communication to insure that employee setting goals, solving problems, direct
voices are heard in the managerial and involvement in decision making, including
executive suite; employees in consultation committees,
representation on policy bodies, and selection
l employee participation on advisory
of new co-workers[17]. Shashkin[18] has
groups, task forces, and cross-functional
argued that participative management is an
teams in problem solving and systems
ethical imperative.
improvement;
TQM organizations use a participative
l empowerment as an underlying
approach in decision making because doing
framework that enables individual
so offers a number of benefits (see [19,20]).
employees to solve problems and satisfy
One is that people will accept a decision more
customers without time-consuming action
readily when they have been were involved in
approvals; making it. Another is that diverse input often
l focus training efforts on quality; leads to a high quality decision. Yet another is
that it helps to develop an environment of
l incorporate quality dimensions into
trust, which helps to develop an achievement
performance review systems, and
orientation among the employees. For
individual performance reviews reflect the
example, Cole’s[21] observation of a General
input of customers, both internal and
Motors plant revealed that the workers and
external;
their union were equally very enthusiastic
l a variety of formal and informal financial
about the new emphasis on quality –
and non-financial rewards for individuals participating in determining high-quality
and teams; and standards provides workers with a feeling of
l a healthy and safe work environment self-worth and dignity. It is also beneficial in
reaffirms the value of employees in the sense that it is the lower-level employees
creating a TQM culture. who are close to the customer, and they thus
know what the customer wants – as Juran
TQM, basically, requires that organizations
proposed, in the old days, the “tool maker”
should effectively implement and keep
and the “tool user” were one and the same.
implemented employee participation and
The “tool maker” could thus easily judge
empowerment programs (EPEPs). Based on
what would best serve the “tool user”[14].
existing academic literature and the popular
TQM organizations empower groups
press, this article discusses the nature of
because effective organizations consist of
EPEPs and numerous barriers to their
smaller, more adaptable, interdependent,
implementation and maintenance which must
parallel problem-solving and information
be overcome.
sharing, relatively self-sufficient
subunits[22,23,24]. For example, in recent
years, many US enterprises have begun
Employee Participation and
applying a managerial form labelled “team
Empowerment
self-management”[25]. Other labels used
Blackburn and Rosen[16] found that Baldrige include “self-managed work teams” and
Award winners apply participative “quality circles”[26]. Today about one in five
management, empower employees and US employers use self-management teams,
groups, and have a flat organizational and by the end of the 1990s, experts predict
30
VOLUME 2 NUMBER 2
1994
that 40 to 50 percent of all US employers type of behavior, when a problem arises, an
could be managing themselves through such ad hoc group consisting of members who
mechanisms[27]. The basic idea of team self- possess the relevant knowledge is formed to
management is that members of the team serve temporarily as decision makers. The
possess a high degree of decisional autonomy group, which may consist of shopfloor
and control of activities – empowerment – workers, managers, technical experts,
which were previously a prerogative of suppliers, and customers, comes together to
management[28]. Blackburn and Rosen do a job, and then disband, with everyone
[16, p. 50] cite Pauline Brody, chairwoman going back to their regular jobs or to the next
of Xerox’s Quality Forum, who stated that assignment. For example, large construction
human resource practices in TQM firms such as Bechtel, Fluor, and Brown &
organizations must be congruent with Roothand pick groups of employees and
corporate culture, including a shift from outside contractors with the right skills for
working as individuals to working as teams. each new dam, refinery, or airport. Becton
Blackburn and Rosen[16] list performance Dickinson, according to its CEO, Gilmartin,
measurement and evaluation as being based organizes its own cross-functional teams
on team goals. In Japan, this team orientation including not only its own people but also
is referred to as total quality control (TQC) or vendors, suppliers, and people from other
Jidka[29]. divisions [31, p. 42].
Many TQM organizations’ decisions are The organization practicing this behavior
made in what Weick[30] labelled an “ad hoc requires a system to keep track of people and
center”, which is defined by task-relevant, people’s skills. For example, Cypress
specialized knowledge; centers of control, Semiconductor, a San Jose, California, maker
authority, and communication are problem- of specialty computer chips, has developed a
specific and dependent on where the expertise computer system that keeps track of its 1,500
to solve a problem rests. Another label used is employees as they criss-cross between
“problem-solving groups”[26]. The Baldrige different functions, teams, and projects.
Award-winning companies studied by Apple is developing a computer network
Blackburn and Rosen[16] practice this called Spider – a system which combines a
behavior. Charles Sabel, a sociologist at MIT, network of personal computers with a video-
describes this type of organization as a conferencing system and a database of
geometric form that has no identifiable top or employee records. A manager assembling a
bottom (the Mobius strip organization), “a team can call up profiles of employees who
body that constantly turns on itself, in an are stationed anywhere in the world. A color
endless cycle of creation and destruction” photo of the person can be seen on the screen,
[31, p. 42]. where he/she works, who reports to him/her,
As contended by Kenan Sahin, president of to whom he/she reports, and his/her skills. If
Kenan Systems Corporation, a Cambridge, the manager wants to interview a candidate
Massachusetts software consulting firm, in in, for instance, Frankfurt, he/she can call
this type of organization managers will have him/her over the Spider network and talk with
to change gears readily, following those who him/her in living color on the computer
know most about the subject[31, p. 50]. screen[31, p. 41].
Therefore, a skilled scientist or marketer or Basically, participative management and
engineer who is a manager on one project empowerment generates an organizational
may have to be a follower on the next. culture which challenges workers. Babbar and
Basically, in organizations which apply this Rai[32] proposed that the organization “must
31
ORGANIZATIONS:
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
challenge employees and engage them his explanation of adhocracy, many levels of
intellectually so as to optimize the use and administration restrict the organization’s
development of human resource”(p. 109). ability to adapt.
Clearly, one of the stronger components of The flatter structure is made possible by
effective TQM is a commitment to the the enormous advancements made in the
development of human resources. Babbar and communications technologies, which, as Peter
Rai[32] indicated that: “Managers can make F. Drucker noted, enables managers to
this possible by providing the necessary communicate with a far wider span of
infrastructure required to bring out the best in individuals than was possible in the past[39].
their employees and building in mechanisms Spans of control thus give way to spans of
for them to use in order to draw from the communication. For example, at Cypress
environment. This in turn should facilitate Semiconductor, CEO T.J. Rodgers has a
continuous improvement in basic processes
computer system that enables him to keep
and raise the productivity of individuals”
abreast of every employee (1,500) and team
(p. 109). This aspect of TQM is thus
in his rapidly moving, decentralized,
dependent on the organization’s ability to
constantly changing organization[31, p. 46].
gather and share information openly, as well
It should be noted that the path-goal theory
as to apply participative management and
suggests that wide spans are possible if the
empowerment in a genuine way. Participative
employees are well-trained and
management is not new. In the US industrial
experienced[40]. This TQM ability therefore
economy it goes back to behavioral
depends on the organization’s ability to
management thought in the 1930s (see[33]),
implement and maintain EPEPs. And the
and its pseudo use by managers is well
organization’s ability to implement and
established in the human resources
maintain EPEPs depends on a flat
management school of thought (see[34]).
structure[3]. One of the characteristics of the
TQM organizations have a flat structure;
TQM culture identified by Blackburn and
that is, they have fewer managerial layers
Rosen[16] is “a wide span of control” (p. 51).
than traditional hierarchical organizations.
It also depends on the implementation of
The flat structure is needed to make EPEPs
ongoing training programs.
possible[35]. And also because, as Tom
Peters has been quoted saying: “A twelve-
Ongoing Training Programs
layer company can’t compete with a three-
Fundamentally, the participative-
layer company”[36]. This is in part because
empowerment organizational culture requires
paying many managers at many levels and the
slowness of hierarchical decision making in a change “from a focus on results to a focus
tall structures would make organizations on continuous improvement of the processes
existing in a dynamic environment less that deliver the results”[16, p. 50]. It thus
competitive. Another reason is that an requires developing more flexible cultures
organization can create an atmosphere of and structures, new organizational practices
maximum creativity only if it reduces and socializing employees to them. Babbar
hierarchical elements to the very minimum, and Rai[32, p. 109] have proposed that
and creates a corporate culture in which its continuous improvement in basic processes
vision, company philosophy, and strategies and raising the productivity of employees can
can be implemented by employees who think be facilitated by challenging them and
independently and take initiative[37]. engaging them intellectually. Babbar and
Furthermore, as Mintzberg[38] proposed in Rai[32] state that managers “can make this
32
VOLUME 2 NUMBER 2
1994
possible by providing the necessary group has invented, discovered, or developed
infrastructure required to bring out the best in in learning to cope with its problems of
their employees and building in mechanisms external adaptation and internal integration,
for them to use in order to draw from the and that have worked well enough to be
environment” (p. 109). According to considered valid, and therefore to be taught to
Walton[41], training programs are a primary new members as the correct way to perceive,
mechanism through which organizations think and feel in relation to those
socialize employees to new organizational problems”(p. 3). Organizational culture is
values; they also signal an organization’s thus defined by the organization’s members’
desire for greater employee involvement and frames of reference, which are articulated and
its reciprocal commitment to increasing codified by organizational statements of
employee welfare. Hirschhorn and purposes, policies, myths, stories, and
Gilmore[42] indicated that such a power shift rituals[45]. Hofstede et al.[46] break down
and cultural change can cause increased the meaning of organizational culture into
practice, such as symbols, heroes, and rituals,
aggression for all parties and severe problems
and into values, such as good/evil, beautiful/
with authority relationships. The training
ugly, normal/abnormal, rational/irrational.
programs must therefore address this
According to Hofstede et al.[46, pp. 311-12],
problem. For example, Young[43, p. 692], in
the value aspects of organizational culture are
discussing the implementation of a Japanese
determined by national culture, and the
style just-in-time (JIT) system in American
practice aspects are determined by the
organizations, proposed that: “The greater the
organization as a means of adapting to
number of high-quality training programs
environmental demands for change. The
related to power shifting between
notion of culture thus leads to a number of
management and workers, the faster its
questions about EPEPs.
[JIT’s] rate of adoption and the better the
To implement such programs, do
firm’s performance”. As Blackburn and
organizations need to change both the
Rosen[16] report: “the Baldrige companies
practice and value aspects of organizational
focus their training efforts on quality. Their
culture? If both need to be changed, how are
quality training programs are comprehensive,
the value aspects changed? For example, the
well funded, and fully supported by top
education system in the USA fosters
management” (p. 55). Of course, since the
individual efforts and in Germany and Japan
environment is constantly changing, and
it fosters group harmony and cooperation.
organizations respond to changes, training
Therefore, to implement EPEPs, which
programs to change the organization’s culture
requires group cooperation, does the USA
must be ongoing.
have to transform its education system? In
light of the fact that many Americans strongly
adhere to the individualistic approach, how is
Questions about EPEPs which Need
the transformation accomplished?
Answers
Furthermore, Hofstede[47] found that
Basically, effective implementation and societies consist of multicultural dimensions:
maintenance of EPEPs requires a new large or small power distance, strong or weak
organizational culture. Organizational culture uncertainty avoidance, group-oriented or
is not easily changed, however. Schein[44] individualistic, and masculinity or femininity.
has defined organizational culture as the Individuals dominated by a large power
“pattern of basic assumptions that a given distance and/or a strong uncertainty
33
ORGANIZATIONS:
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
avoidance cultural dimension (e.g. the revealed that some workers appear to prefer
French) do not necessarily want the monotonous work with little task
responsibilities which come with the variety[52,53]. How do organizations address
participation and empowerment programs. these hindrances? Furthermore, for
And people dominated by an individualistic participation to work, according to
cultural dimension (e.g. Americans) do not fit Tannenbaum et al.[54], there has to be
well into the group-orientation aspects of enough time, issues must be relevant to
such programs. How do organizations workers’ interests, employees must have the
attempting to implement these types of ability to participate, and the organizational
program overcome these differing national culture must support employee involvement.
cultural values? Japan, for example, is a In this dynamic environment there is not
group-oriented culture. Implementation and always enough time, and when quick
maintenance of such programs would thus be decisions are needed, it is often best that one
possible there. However, Japan is also a large person should make them. How do
power distance culture (employees prefer organizations address such barriers? Also, a
direction), which suggests that it would not be multitude of studies (e.g.[55,56,57]) have
possible there. But the popular press reports looked at the participation-performance
that such programs have been effectively relationship. When the results of a number of
implemented there. How? Or is it that these studies are examined closely, it seems
Japanese organizations do not really apply as if participation has only moderate impact
these programs in the way in which they are on variables such as motivation, productivity,
understood in the West? For instance, and job satisfaction. And research[58,59]
Junkerman[48] has noticed that there is strong shows that the effectiveness of self-managed
social pressure in Japan to make “voluntary” work teams is not uniformly positive. How do
suggestions for improvement in the work- organizations address these barriers?
place. Some companies such as Nissan have a Also, Child[60] has noticed that a firm’s
quota of suggestions for each employee that traditions “frequently have their origins in the
must be met each month[49]. Further, ideology of an entrepreneurial founder who
Japanese managers use peer pressure to force set out both a strategic perspective on the task
employees to master their jobs in order not to of the organization and a philosophy on the
call attention to themselves too often[50]. form of the labor process to accomplish it”
These kinds of pressure cause stress for the (p. 171). Thus, when implementing change,
workers – Japanese or American. How do past design choices are likely to influence the
organizations attempting to implement such types of job design and coordination and
programs address this problem? control strategy chosen[61]. Bartlett and
Hofstede[47] also concluded that Ghoshal[62] showed how an organization’s
Americans measure moderate on the power administrative heritage and ingrained
distance cultural dimension; they like to be management norms constrain an
consulted on decisions, but do not necessarily organization’s ability to reconfigure itself.
want to participate. For example, a survey How do organizations attempting to
published in the Wall Street Journal[51] implement EPEPs address these barriers?
revealed that American workers are often Similarly, Quinn’s[63] competing values
reluctant to take the initiative unless they model provides one means of examining how
have a union to give them protection. Also, different value orientations underlying
not every worker likes the challenge brought organizational culture affect design choices.
by such programs. For example, research has According to Quinn and Rohrbaugh[64],
34
VOLUME 2 NUMBER 2
1994
some organizations possess flexibility- For example, Baldrige Award winner Wallace
oriented values, which emphasize Company’s customers eventually rebelled at
decentralization and differentiation, and some paying higher prices to fund the costs of the
possess control-oriented values, which firm’s quality program. The enterprise lost
emphasize centralization and integration. The money, laid off employees, and was forced to
former is likely to encounter much less operate in Chapter 11[16, p. 61]. And, not all
difficulty in implementing such programs customers shop for or want quality; many
than the latter. How then do the latter shop for value – the usefulness, desirability,
organizations deal with the implementation or worth of a thing[68].
difficulties? Furthermore, Quinn and Furthermore, Greiner[69] proposed that
Kimberly[65] have indicated that no organizations evolve as a result of crises.
organization is likely to reflect only one Numerous studies (e.g.[70,71,72]) have
value; instead organizations reflect a revealed that organizations confronted with
combination of values, although one could be crisis conditions tend to increase the
more dominant than the others. This suggests formalization and standardization of
that an organization may apply strong procedures, and to centralize and involve
controls in a certain function, e.g. finance, fewer people in the decision-making process
and at the same time apply looser controls in – although this occurs more frequently when
another, e.g. marketing and R&D. How do the organization exists in a state of scarcity
organizations attempting to implement such than when it exists in a state of
programs address the need for different munificence[70]. This suggests that to
approaches for different functions? change, an organization stops application of
Further yet, major cultural changes and EPEPs. The Wallace Company, now a unit of
structural change efforts are very expensive Wilson Industries, has done this, but plans to
and time-consuming due to the need to build continue TQM principles when the negative
trust, develop skills, and overcome resistance. financial situation has been corrected[73].
For example, shifting from a mechanistic to Further, organizations confronted with
an organic form is time-consuming and costly organizational decline tend to cut
because of the requirement that lower-level administrative personnel[74]. This, it seems,
employees, supervisory personnel, and demoralizes employees – both those who are
middle managers be retrained in the let go and those who remain. How do
knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to organizations reconcile their overall needs
carry out their new roles. And these changes with the employees’ needs?
disrupt existing power and status networks, In the same context, is avoiding crises and
making resistance probable as well as costly maintaining equilibrium the ultimate aim of
and time-consuming to overcome[60,66]. EPEPs? Should it be? According to
Also, organizations incur substantial ongoing Mintzberg[75], the interaction of seven forces
training costs after their initial investment in the organizational design, competition,
because of the continual need to update cooperation, concentration, direction,
employee knowledge and skills[67]. In other efficiency, innovation, and proficiency,
words, quality is expensive, and ultimately, maintain a natural equilibrium. The
the consumer must bear these expenses. What equilibrium, Mintzberg proposed, will be
if the customer does not want to pay for these disrupted if any single force dominates the
costs? Or if the consumer can get the product system – organizational contamination results
for less from companies which do not incur as because this force will change the character
many costs in implementing such programs? of the other forces. However, if the
35
ORGANIZATIONS:
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
equilibrium is maintained, the organization, companies use it [TQM] and promote it
Mintzberg contends, will encounter problems strictly for marketing advantages. They hype
because it shows no movement – as no one it and talk about it, but it really isn’t valid. If
single force is powerful enough to set the you talk to their people, they really do not
tone. The resolution to this organizational believe in it and they really are not doing that
problem, Mintzberg[75] put forth, is the much”[73, pp. 78-9]. Following her
skilful manipulation of the polar opposite investigation of two firms in England which
competition and cooperation forces – these failed in their attempts to implement quality
two forces must be balanced simultaneously programs, Brooke[78] questioned whether
with the other forces. Do EPEPs attain such a quality techniques can be taken seriously. She
balance? If so, how? If not, how can they? posed the question: “Could it be that heavy
Also, organizations with such programs emphasis on quality symbols and ritual
rely heavily on informal group controls. Sethi processes can mask what is ‘really’ going on
et al.[76] contend that Americans join group
and that experience may contradict the quality
activities voluntarily, “on the basis of
objectives, resulting in organizational
enlarged benefits that will accrue to them for
shambles?” (p. 4).
participation, balanced against the loss of
Another question which needs an answer
individual freedom that is surrendered to the
has to do with entrepreneurship. According to
group” (p. 243). How do organizations
Mintzberg[80], the entrepreneur, who is
address situations where the employees do
functional in smaller, newer enterprises[69]
not want to participate in group activities
and does not work well in a structured
because they do not want to lose their
organization, centralizes decision making and
individual freedom? The Japanese are forced,
has little interest in employee involvement.
in many instances, to become members of
Does this mean that EPEPs cannot be
groups which others feel are appropriate for
implemented in new, small organizations?
them[76]. Can Americans, for example, be
Still another question has to do with
mandated to join groups? Even if they could
individuals’ need for power and
be, it may not be effective – as Magjuka[77]
empowerment. Many people are motivated by
has proposed, employee involvement “with
the need for power[81]. What if such
voluntary membership status works best for
individuals do not want to surrender their
the firm” (p. 208).
power? How do organizations deal with these
And, labels such as “A TQM
individuals?
Organization” or a “Baldrige Award Winner”
or an “ISO 9000 Company” symbolize the
organization’s commitment to quality both at
Conclusion
the employee level and the organizational
level. The label therefore becomes This article has discussed employee
organizational worth; it becomes a “rubber participation and empowerment programs
stamp”[78]. Is such a guarantee possible? which are needed for organizational
How can it be? Some of the firms included in effectiveness; it has also posed many
Peters and Waterman’s famous list of questions which need answers before such
“excellent” corporations soon after turned out programs can be effectively implemented and
to be not so excellent, and TQM maintained. These questions suggest that
organizations tend to fail very quickly[79]. while we may know that such programs are
Wallace Wilson, CEO of Wilson Industries, imperative for organizational effectiveness,
has been cited as saying: “I think some there is still much to be learned about what
36
VOLUME 2 NUMBER 2
1994
such programs really are and what their real 9. Crosby, P.B., Quality is Free – The Art of
purpose is. Are they a quick-fix business Making Quality Certain, McGraw-Hill,
solution? Are they a methodology? New York, NY, 1979.
Wilkinson[82] has inferred that TQM is 10. Deming, W.E., Out of the Crisis,
neither; that it is an attitude, a set of values. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Center for Advanced Engineering Study,
Wilkinson also concluded that there is very
Cambridge, MA, 1986.
little discussion in the literature of what is
11. Feigenbaum, A.V., Total Quality Control,
required in order for TQM to work. This
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1983.
article has to some extent attempted to show
what is needed. Notwithstanding all the 12. Imai, M., Kaizen – The Key to Japan’s
Competitive Success, Random House,
barriers, the concept of participation-
New York, NY, 1987.
empowerment is still valuable. It provides, at
13. Juran, J.M., Managerial Breakthrough,
least, a framework for thinking in terms of
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1964.
organizational and managerial improvement.
14. Juran, J.M. and Gryna, F.M. Jr, Quality
n
Planning and Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY, 1970.
15. Cavaleri, S. and Obloj, K., Management
References
Systems: A Global Perspective,
1. Drucker, P.F., “The Emerging Theory of Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA,
Manufacturing”, Harvard Business 1993.
Review, Vol. 90 No. 3, 1990, pp. 94-102. 16. Blackburn, R. and Rosen, B., “Total Quality
2. Harrington, H.J., The Improvement and Human Resources Management:
Process:How America’s Leading Lessons Learned from Baldrige Award-
Companies Improve Quality, McGraw-Hill, winning Companies”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 7 No. 3,
New York, NY, 1987.
1993, pp. 49-66.
3. Shelton, K., “People Power”, Executive
17. Cotton, J.L., Vollrath, D.A., Froggatt, K.L.,
Excellence, December 1991, pp. 7-8.
Lengnick-Hall, M.L. and Jennings, K.R.,
4. Reichheld, F.F. and Sasser, W.E. Jr, “Zero
“Employee Participation:Diverse Forms
Defections: Quality Comes to Services”,
and Different Outcomes”, Academy of
Harvard Business Review, September-
Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, 1988,
October 1990, pp. 105-11.
pp. 8-22.
5. Taguchi, G. and Clausing, D., “Robust
18. Shashkin, M., “Participative Management
Quality”, Harvard Business Review,
is an Ethical Imperative”, Organizational
January-February 1990, pp. 65-75.
Dynamics, Spring 1984, pp. 5-22.
6. Mefford, R.N., “Quality and Productivity:
19. Robbins, S.P., Organizational Behavior,
The Linkage”, International Journal of
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993.
Production Economics, Vol. 24, 1991, pp.
20. Filley, A.C., House, R.J. and Kerr, S.,
137-45.
Managerial Process and Organization
7. Feigenbaum, A.V. , Total Quality Control: Behavior,Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL,
Engineering and Management, McGraw- 1976.
Hill, New York, NY, 1961.
21. Cole, R.E., “USQuality Improvement in
8. Collard, R. and Sivyer, G., “Total Quality”, the Auto Industry: Close but No Cigar”,
Personnel Management, Factsheet 29, California Management Review, Vol. 33
May 1990. No. 5, 1990, pp. 71-85.
37
ORGANIZATIONS:
AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
22. Thompson, J.D., Organizations in Action, 33. Mayo, E., The Human Problems of
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1967. Industrial Civilization, Harvard University
23. Dean, J.W. Jr and Susman, G.I., “Strategic Press, Cambridge, MA, 1939.
Responses to Global Competition: 34. McGregor, D., The Human Side of the
Advanced Technology, Organizational Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
Design and Human Resources Practices”, 1960.
in Snow, C.C. (Ed.), Strategy, Organization
35. Semler, R., “Managing without
Design and Human Resource
Managers”, Harvard Business Review,
Management, JAIPress, Greenwich, CT,
September-October 1989.
1989.
36. Braham, J., “Money Talks”, Industry Week,
24. MacKenzie, K.D., “Holonomic Processes
17 April 1989, p. 23.
for Ensuring Competitiveness”, in
Kilmann, R.H. and Kilmann, I. (Eds), 37. Hinterhuber, H.H. and Popp, W., “Are You
Making Organizations Competitive, a Strategist or Just a Manager?”, Harvard
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1991. Business Review, January-February 1992,
pp. 105-113.
25. Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. Jr, “Leading
Workers to Lead Themselves:The 38. Mintzberg, H., Structures in Fives:
External Leadership of Self-managing Designing Effective Organizations,
Work Teams”, Administrative Science Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1983.
Quarterly, Vol. 32, 1987, pp. 106-28.
39. Main, J., “The Winning Organization”,
26. Magjuka, R.F., “Self-managed Teams Fortune, 26 September 1988, p. 60.
Achieve Continuous Improvement Best”,
40. Keller, R.T., “Test of the Path-goal Theory
National Productivity Review, Winter
of Leadership with Need for Clarity as a
1992, pp. 51-7.
Moderator in Research and Development
27. Lublin, J.S., “Trying to Increase Worker
Organizations”, Journal of Applied
Productivity, More Employers Alter
Psychology, April 1989, pp. 208-12.
Management Style”, The Wall Street
41. Walton, R.E., Up and Running:Integrating
Journal, 13 February 1992, p. B1.
Information Technology and the
28. Mills, P.K., “Self-management:Its Control
Organization, Harvard Business School
and Relationship to Other Organizational
Press, Boston, MA, 1989.
Properties”, Academy of Management
42. Hirschhorn, V. and Gilmore, T.N., “The
Review, Vol. 8, 1983, pp. 445-53.
Psychodynamics of Cultural Change:
29. Chase, R. and Aquilino, N.,Production
Learning from a Factory”, Human
and Operations Management, 5th ed.,
Resources Management, Vol. 28, 1989,
Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1989.
pp. 211-33.
30. Weick, K.E., “Theorizing about
43. Young, S.M., “AFramework for Successful
Organizational Communication”, in Jablin,
Adoption and Performance of Japanese
F.M., Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H. and
Manufacturing Practices in the United
Porter, L.W. (Eds), Handbook of
States”, Academy of Management
Organizational Communication, Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1987. Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, 1992, pp. 647-700.
31. Dumaine, B., “The Bureaucracy Busters”, 44. Schein, E., “Coming to a New Awareness
Fortune, 17 June 1991. of Organizational Culture”, Sloan
Management Review, Winter 1984,
32. Babbar, S. and Rai, A., “Competitive
pp. 3-16.
Intelligence for International Business”,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 26 No. 3, 1993, 45. Shrivastava, P. and Schneider, S.,
pp. 103-13. “Organizational Frames of Reference”,
38