Total quality for americans

Vol. 13. No. 4. CENTER FOR CREATIVE LEADERSHIP 1993

Total Quality for Americans Elizabeth Holmes

Before you begin reading this article, I would like you to engage in a word- association experiment. At the end of this paragraph I will list ten words. As you read each one, please write down thefirst word that comes into your mind: try not to he influenced by the others in the list. In the following article I will tell you how other people have responded to these words. If you wish, send your responses to me, along with any thoughts you have. The words are: standards, specifications, control, maintenance, perfection, new, change, possibility, opportunity, and breakthrough.

Last April, as a part of a new- program-design effort that I am leading at the Center (see Holmes, 1992), I visited Japan and met with the leaders of five companies that have received quality awards from the Japan Management Association (JMA). Although I was anxious to ask these leaders specific questions about how the quality process works there, I was also interested in observing the cultural assumptions that underlie total quality management (TQM) in Japan.

My interest in this came from an idea that has been in the back of my mind for some time. As I studied the loss of momentum, after some initial success, that many organizations in this country experience in their efforts to implement TQM, I had the feeling that its frequent “failure” in America might be a conse- quence of an imperfect fit between TQM and our culture.

This hypothesis was brought forward in my thinking recently when I read

Incredibly American: Releasing the Heart of Quality, by Marilyn Zuckerman and Lewis Hatala. Although they do not address it directly, many of their ideas support the hypothesis, and I was anxious to consider it specifically. My trip to Japan provided me with the opportunity to do this. After identifying some of the unspoken, but powerful, cultural assumptions that are the foundation of TQM in Japan, I planned to evaluate how these values are viewed in American culture. 1 hoped that doing this would lead me to the values in American culture upon which m l y effective TQM can be built.

The Foundations of Quality in Japan

In my observations of Japanese culture I noted four underlying assumptions that I think are the basis of TQM as it is practiced there: continuity, order, precision, and relationship.

Continuity

continuity is striking. On my visit to NEC my hosts presented a history of their quality journey displayed as a trend line. They showed their progress from the concepts of Frederick Taylor, to quality control, to quality assurance, to zero defects, to “Operation Quality” (a movement to change focus from quantity to quality), to software QC, to TQC for customer satisfaction, to the current effort, called total productivity movement (TPM), aimed at prevention of mistakes.

At Zexel there was a similar repre- sentation of quality and quality concepts as a continuous process. The concept of

The Japanese commitment to

continuous improvement was applied at the macro level as well as the micro. or product and service, level.

training process provided for employees. At Chinsan-so the training schedule showed the cumculum by age group. There was a curriculum for 18-year-olds, a different one for 25-year-olds, another for 35-year-olds, and still another for 45-year-olds. Although there was some overlap of subject, each subsequent cumculum took the subject to a higher level. I asked if it were possible for a 30-year-old to get the training designated for a 35-year-old and was told, emphati- cally, no: “This would never happen.”

The training plan thus assumes that people start at the beginning and will stay through all the stages; for a good many of the employees this is, in fact. the case.

sive training opportunities for specific company requirements, but, in addition, at Sekigahara employees are encouraged to continue their education through corre- spondence courses as a way of preparing

Continuity can also be seen in the

All of the companies offered exten-

Also in this issue. . . 1

The Issue of Homogeneity Within Organizations Benjamin Schneider, Sylvester Taylor, John Heemor, Harold Goldstein, and Brent Smith .........._... 7

INSIDE VIEW Walter F. Ulmer ................................ 9

INKLINGS David P. Campbell ......................... 10

IN PROGRESS Leigh Priebe Kearney ...._.._.._._........ 12

INFORMATION .................... 13

Center for Creative Leadership 2 Issues & Observations: Vol. 13, No. 4, 1993

for more responsible positions in the company. Many employees take advantage of this opportunity.

When I compare these two examples with American assumptions about continuity, I find that we have a dfferent perspective. When we talk about manage- rial initiatives-be they management by objectives, quality circles, or zero defects, to name just three-we tend to see them as temporary-a “flavor of the month.” We view each one as a finite approach to management that either works or does not, and we do not consider them as additive, continuous-improvement efforts to create a more effective organization over time. The concept of a curriculum extending over twenty-seven years of a person’s career would strike us as unrealistic. In Japan it is the reality.

Order Order was highly visible to me

throughout my visit. The formality of Japanese culture has often been pointed out, but I think people often fail to notice the practical reasons for it. I call what I observed order so that this practical aspect is not lost. Let me give an example. At Chinsan-so I was met by my hosts and escorted to the visitor’s greeting room, which had a large window overlooking their expansive and beautiful gardens. There were two long sofas facing each other with a broad table between them. When I was offered a seat I sat on the sofa with my back to the window. My hosts quickly asked me to take a seat on the other side of the table, facing the window. I was glad to comply and asked if the change was so that I would have a view of the garden. Everyone just smiled, and the meeting proceeded. Upon leaving I asked my interpreter about the seating; he explained that in Japan guests must sit furthest away from the door, so that when you rise to leave the hosts can arrive at the door first.

Another manifestation of order is the card ceremony. Each host removes his or her business card from its case and, holding it in two hands, offers it to the guest with a bow while announcing his or her name and company or position. The guest then does the same. The cards are displayed in front of each person on the

table during the meeting so that everyone can address others by name.

In America we do things differently. Our visitor greeting areas tend to be open lobby spaces with magazines for us to entertain ourselves while we wait for a receptionist to locate the person we have come to see. Cards are handed back and forth with little time to study them and then relegated to a pocket for the rest of the visit; sometimes we might sneak a look if we can’t recall a person’s name.

The underlying assumptions here are: Look out for yourself; meet people on the run; be casual and independent. Our guests often are expected to make themselves at home and fend for themselves. Systematic, structured approaches, particularly around social behavior, feel too restrictive. The protocol required for formal state dinners and meetings with

COMPANIES VISITED

Chinsan-so. Tokyo’s Japanese Garden Restaurant; wedding and banquet facilities.

Sekigahara seisakusho Ltd. Manufacturers of special cranes; ship, tunnel, railway, and plant machinery; granite surface plate; natural stones for buildings; and large-scale hydraulic cylinders.

Aisin Seii Co. Ltd. Manufacturers of automotive parts, including body, mobile communication, drive-train transmission, brake, steering, and suspension-related parts, and electronic components.

NEC. Manufacturers of communi- cations systems and equipment, computers and industrial electronic systems, electron devices, and consumer electronics.

Zexel. Manufacturers of automotive air-conditioning systems, diesel fuel-injection systems, engine and vehicle control systems, hydraulic and pneumatic equipment, and electronic components and factory automation.

foreign dignitaries is TV news material in the US.

Precision Precision is similar to order, but I see

it as distinct because I think it reflects a higher level of order and a different set of values.

interpreter and I took the train. As we waited on the platform a train showing our destination came into the station. It was 9:06 a.m. My interpreter explained to me that we would not take that train because it would arrive at 9:3 1. Our train, which would get to our station at 9:12, would arrive at 9:29. At 9: 12 our train anived, and at 9:29 we were deboarding at our destination. An American manager from Motoroia told me that in the four years he has lived in Tokyo, the train has been late three times, all due to system safety shut downs following major natural disasters.

the manner in which my time was managed. Well in advance of my trip, JMA, which acted as my host, asked me to send a description of the purpose of my visit and a list of the type of questions I would be asking; this would allow them to arrange for me to see the appropriate people. Prior to my departure, I was sent a package with a detailed itinerary and materials from each organization I was to visit. The schedule detailed every aspect of the visit, the persons I was to see, and the manner in which I would get from one destination to another. Upon arrival at each organization, the same type of detailed schedule had been created. Everyone involved had copies of the schedule and took responsibility for keeping us on time.

The American attitude toward precision is more casual, and other considerations are more important. Left to ourselves, most of us would take the first train rather than wait an additional six minutes; we are anxious to get started and the two minutes gained at the end would not matter that much to us. Similarly, we tend to take liberties with meeting times, preferring to go with the flow rather than be bound by strict schedules.

To get to one of the companies, my

Precision was also demonstrated in

Issues & Observations: Vol. 13, No. 4,1993 3 Center for Creative Leadership

Relationship

on relationships. They feel that they should be long term, and they will take great pains to maintain them. This was illustrated for me at Sekigahara. President Yabashi explained that six years ago, when the company was not doing well, he decided to let the employees try their hand at running things. For the first two years, despite the problems the company was experiencing, their focus was on malung the work environment more pleasant. After two years they began to attend to issues of profitability. The third year they made a profit and have been profitable every year since.

to turn a company that his father had founded over to employees. He said that he asked himself, “Where does the knowledge reside?’ And he trusted that his employees knew what was correct for them; at the same time, he trusted they would not violate their relationship with him and with the company by taking actions that were merely self-serving and which would harm the company.

In the U.S., relationships are more transient. We are far more mobile and likely to change jobs and cities often. (Yabashi-san said he would not hire someone who has had more than three jobs in his career. That would rule out the vast majority of our work force before they reach age thirty.) Broadscale attention to long-term relationship- building in the US. is a relatively new concept that, in fact, has been encouraged by the growth of the quality movement.

The Japanese place great importance

I asked Yabashi-san how he was able

Quality in America We have just reviewed what I consider four of the assumptions about life-how it should be lived and what things are most important-that help form the basis of TQM in Japan, and we have seen that none of these values are primary for us. If we are to create effective TQM in America, our challenge is to identify assumptions that hold a comparable place in our culture and which can be related to quality. Drawing on my research in preparing the Center’s quality leadership program, I would suggest that four likely candidates are: individuality, challenge,

passion, and action. These are, of course, interrelated, as the following discussion will illustrate.

Individuality Individuality is a fundamental

concept in the U.S. The American story, so familiar to all of us, is that this country was built by people who fled oppression to seek individual freedoms. An assump- tion that underlies this story is that each person is competent to do this.

Individuality, of Icourse, has tradition- ally played a strong, if somewhat limited, role in American business. In a command and control environment, it is a few individuals who call the shots. The rest are rewarded and recognized, individu- ally, for how well they carry out the orders. In this environment, leadershp has been defined as a set of traits that an individual in commarid either has or doesn’t have.

we must shift our emphasis on it away from the person in authority to all the contributors to quality processes. In particular, given the central role of teamwork in TQM, we must develop a new understanding of how individuality can play out in teams and team leadership.

We can begin to (do this by emphasiz- ing that individuality is not lost in a team. A team may be understood as a group of diverse individuals, each contributing something necessary to what the group is trying to achieve. And we can point out that leadership need not be vested in one person but leadership roles can be played by a variety of people as the situation and individual expertise dictate. In order for this to be workable, of course, we must see that each team member is prepared to assume a leadership rlole if necessary. This is not an easy task, given the leadership roles that a team typically requires (for instance. supervising, teaching, coaching, mentoring, consulting, and mediating-Bellman, 1992), but each role can be learned, practiced, measured, and improved over time.

There is another issue related to making individuality work for TQM: Historically, individuality has often been stifled in our organizations. Even now, organizations that apparently invite

To make it work for TQM, however,

individual contributions may unconsciously thwart them by sending out strong, but silent, messages that only certain topics are discussible. I have talked with many people, whose organizations purport to have robust and effective quality processes, who have expressed serious doubts about their ability to raise process questions with their bosses. These people, who are themselves in very high positions, feel that such questions may be seen as challenges to the authority, or even the intelligence, of their bosses. By this unconscious repression we shut down the very power source, our individuality. that we need to make our TQM run.

Challenge Challenge is also important to

Americans. The way we know how to value something is to examine the effort it took to accomplish it. If we haven’t fought for it, it is not worth having. As Zuckerman and Hatala (1992, pp. 5 1-53) contend, even as little children we are indoctrinated in the concept that success without effort is not worthy. The example they give is that of our early report cards in which we received grades in achievement and effort. An “A” for achievement and a “5” (low) for effort resulted in disappointment of teachers and parents, and led to the admonishment that we did not “work hard enough” or that the work was too easy. On the other hand, an “A” in achievement and a “1” (high) for effort was met with great pride and support because we were “doing our best” and that’s what counts.

of challenge that they mention is our value for the “come from behind” hero. Consider for a moment two Olympic teams. One was the U.S. hockey team at the 1980 Olympics at Lake Placid. This was a relatively inexperienced team that had never played together before. They had spent only six months training together as a team and were not expected to win anything. They weren’t star players, just good team players with a shared dream. Through hard work, overcoming great obstacles, they injected the American public with their dream. They were classic American heroes.

Another indication of the importance

Center for Creative Leadership 4 Issues & Observations: VoL 13, No. 4,1993

Issues & Observations Published by

Center for Creative Leadership One Leadenhip Place Post Office Box 26300

Greensboro, NC 274386300

San Diego, 619-453-4774

910-288-7210

Colorado Springs, 719-633-3891 Brussels, (32-2) 346-42-01

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

Research and Publication W . H . Drath, III, hblication Director

Editorial Advisory Group Robert M . Burnside Elizabeth Holmes

Cynthia D. M c C a d e y konard R. Sayles

Martin Wilcox, Editor Marcia Horowitz, Associate Editor Ellen Hamman, Editorial Assistant

Joanne Ferguson, 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 patt 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 bask with respect to its activities, programs, or policies.

01993 Center for Creative Leadership All rights reserved

ISSN 106544X

Now contrast this team with the U.S. basketball team at the 1992 Olympics. They were all professional players whose amazing talent and skills were regular fare on TV and whose salaries and endorse- ment earnings were more than most people can even fathom. The fact that they were undefeated in the games was neither a surprise nor a source of great pride for the nation. In fact their performance, however spectacular it may have been, yielded embarrassment and a nationwide yawn by the end of the games. Because the victory was practically assured we assigned little value to it.

we like accomplishing big things. When I was in Japan, one of the comments made to me by a manager at JMA a b u t the American approach to quality was that people in the U.S. like to hit home runs. The Japanese, on the other hand, are generally content with hitting lots of singles. This really came home to me as I read reports and talked to people in the U.S. about their quality efforts. Most of the calls we get a b u t improving quality efforts are pleas for help with breakthrough thinking. We talk about the need for continuous improvement, but the fact is we really want breakthrough. We want home runs. We particularly like grand slams in the bottom of the ninth, with two outs, on a full count, when we are three runs down. This satisfies all at once our needs to achieve with effort, to come from behind, and to do the impossible.

In TQM, just as we need to make ourselves aware of how individuality has been unconsciously stifled, we need to look closely at how our sense of challenge may be undercut. For instance, consider the messages that we believe inspire people to invent. Phrases such as “Do it right the first time” and “zero defects” actually demotivate people (Zuckerman & Hatala, 1992, p. 51). In an environment in which it is st i l l taboo to question your boss’s reasoning, the idea of doing it right the first time only reinforces the need to play it safe. Rather than inspire us to invent, in many instances it leads to fewer risks, playing it safe, and even hiding mistakes. Zuckerman and Hatala (1992, p. 5 1) attribute this depletion of challenge to a conflict in an “internal, unconscious

Another aspect of challenge is that

pattern. . . [which tells us that] more often than not, things are not done right the first time.”

To inspire our work force with Challenge we must first capture their individual interest. They want to know, “What’s in it for me?”

Quality initiatives are replete with encouragements around maintaining profitability or competitive advantage. These concepts seem, for the most part, remote from the rank and file, and even perhaps remote from some managers. In organizations that, for years, have asked people to check their brains at the door, and where workers earn a hundred times less than senior managers, talk of profitability means nothing to most people.

Passion Americans need to feel strongly

about what they do. This is a given in most sports but, ironically, emotion has largely been eliminated from the work- place. As Wilfred Drath (1992, p. 16) has stated, “A sense of detachment from others is regarded as necessary [for managers].” It “protects the manager from being too involved with others’ emotions” (Maccoby, 1976, p. 194). This sentiment is echoed by Zuckerman and Hatala: “Sadly, contemporary American busi- nesses have evolved attitudes and behaviors that repress the emotions needed to reignite the dormant work ethic” @. 222).

must acknowledge and welcome the full range of emotions we experience in our effort to make something happen. Inherent in the phrase is our value for maximum effort. To simply let it happen is neither sufficient nor revered. Yet our focus has been on the numbers and the statistical processes used to achieve our successes and not on the emotional roller coaster that the success has engendered.

individuality and challenge, our quality efforts have too long focused on our rational and logical side and ignored the need we have as a people to feel passion- ately about what we do.

teams who, in show-and-tell sessions, are asked to share their successes with others

For TQM to work in the U.S., we

Considering the American passion for

I have seen this focus shortchange the

Issues & Observatiozrs: VoL 13, No. 4,1993 5 Center for Creative Leadership

in the organization. Typically the story that gets fold is a technical one. It includes all the facts and figures and may include some trial-and-error efforts to find the solution before the breakthrough solution is uncovered, but it seldom includes the emotional journey.

do is more related to emotion than the issue of empowerment. Companies are struggling with the concept of “empowering” employees to take initiative in the work setting. Yet “organizations have few, if any, expectations that a good manager will be close to her or his co- workers” (Drath, 1992, p. 19). Managers develop neither the inclination nor the skills to deal with the full range of emotions effectively. For empowerment to work there must be “shared and open discourse on mission and goals; personal openness and interpersonal disclosure far beyond what is currently assumed to be required in working relationships” @. 28).

Through a process of interpersonal openness, manager and employee can engage one another in those impossible dreams and thereby spark a passion for achievement.

Nothing the quality effort is trying to

Action We also do a lot of talking in this

country about planning first. But the fact is we prefer to do first and plan later. At the Center we experience this in almost every participant exercise. Even when we designate a specific planning time, inevitably participants will either cut the planning time short, believe that time is up before it is, or start “doing” during the planning time. I also experienced this in real life. A company I worked for merged with another organization. When the president announced the merger he said, “We have merged with the X corporation, effective August 1 (the date had passed), and now we will plan it.” Those were his exact words.

Because TQM calls for the plan-do- check-act cycle, we are compelled to do some planning as part of our quality process, but it is not our natural tendency or preference.

In order to make TQM work in America we need to harness this desire for action and build lots of action into our process.

Zuckerman and Hatala (1992, pp. 50- 55) suggest a process that allows for the “internal unconscious pattern” of failure- recovery-success. An opportunity to take some action that will not be judged as having to be right the first time would enable members of the organization to take a little risk, experiment, and, then, employing the plan-do-check-act process detexmine how to make it right the next time. If quick failure and recovery is part of our psychology, we need to build it in up front.

As managers we can use our pen- chant for action by first acting ourselves. We can revisit the tenets of any of the principal quality dogmas and apply them in our own interactions, and we can ask ourselves: Are we truly participating or are we waiting to be told that we can? Are we empowered ourselves or are we waiting for someone to empower us?

ties that exist for action; appreciate that each action is not necessarily obvious but that the overall results are. For example, in the process of conducting a performance-appraisal session, managers can ask questions that enable the employee to tell them the ways the manager can assist the employee in canying out his or her job. In meetings managers cs~ll establish ground rules that allow ? h e for people to examine those ‘bdiscussibles.” Managers can encourage employees to question their, the manager’s, reasoning and assumptions. These seemingly small actions can lead to a level of relationship that will be reflected in the employee’s ability to learn where the organization is really headed with quality.

I should add a note of caution, however, our need for action can sometimes get in the way of the need to be thoughtful about our responses to the challenges we face. Our headlong rush to implement quality processes before we really understood what we were asking, not of our employees but of ourselves, is the most glaring example.

a few people and made them gurus because their processes worked. Initially! Now we are finding that something else is needed and we are desperately seeking answers and “techniques” that we can

We have to recognize the opportuni-

We swallowed whole the teachings of

employ on others. Not many of us are asking about techniques to employ on ourselves. Nor are we willing to explore new ways of thinking about the current quality challenges.

Putting It All Together In order to make quality work in America, we need to incoprate the values I have just described, which are some of the underlying assumptions in our culture, into a quality framework. Zuckerman and Hatala (1992, pp. 56-65) offer one such framework, which they call the American quality archetype.

The American quality archetype consists of three phases (crisis and failure, support, and celebration) in which all of the values mentioned above are allowed to play out. For instance, Zuckerman and Hatala explain that “quality is very much an emotion-laden concept for Americans and it’s not to be taken lightly” (p. x). They further quote Tom Peters (1987, p. 71): “It is essential to begin with emotion. . . . Quality begins precisely with emotional attachments, no ifs, ands or buts.”

They describe the beginning of the American’s quality journey as a tension between emotions and actions. Americans discover they are not doing what is wanted or expected and feel bad and embarrassed. A transformation takes place; they do produce what others want or expect and they feel proud and satis- fied.

fact, while Americans don’t like losing at the end, they prefer it to succeeding at the beginning and so see failure as very much a part of OUT process. Americans really see failure at the beginning as “only human.” This is what it means to be normal. “If you succeed in the beginning, theds no glory for you and no reward. You didn’t work hard enough” (p. 51). Zuckerman and Hatala also state that Americans react negatively to cemh words associated with quality. They say that the words s t h r h , spec@cations, control, maintenance, and perfection do not motivate Americans (p. 55). Instead they shut down their energy and make them feel conh.olled rather than empowered; the word perfection, in fact, means

Zuckerman and Hatala argue that in

~ ~~ ~

Center for Creative Leadership 6 Issues & Observahras: VoL 13, No. 4,1993

“the end.” When you reach perfection there is nothing else to do. Other words stimulate very strong, positive feelings. New change. possibility, opporrunit?., and breakthrough are all words that excite us. “Americans associate them with creativity and innovation“ ip. 55) .

By now you recognize the words I asked you to react to in the prelude to this article. This August I experimented with them at a presentation 1 gave at a meeting of the American Society for Training and Development in Charlotte. Before I began my talk on my experience in Japan, I asked the group of about eighty people to do an association exercise with these same words.

I asked the table groups of eight to discuss their responses and then repon out to the large group. One table group said, “You set us up. The first five words you gave were negative and the second five words were positive.” Another group said, “We know what you were doing. The first five words pertain to the Japanese and the second five words pertain to Americans.” Given the difference in our perceptions around continuity. order, planning, and so on, it is not surprising that Americans yawn at the concept of continuous improvement, maintenance. incremental change. The very terminology itself is contrary to our view of the world.

I think their reaction, and perhaps yours, confirms the need to transform the process of TQM into something that Americans fundamentally value. Our commitment to quality is not in question, but we need to achieve it in our own way.

Bibliography Bellman. G. (December. 1992) How to build a

successful team. Info-Line (number 921 2). (Newsletter published by the .American Society for Training and Development.)

Drath. H’. H. ( 1993). Why munuyen have trouble empowering: A thmrutical perspec- rive bused on concepts of odult developmenr (Report No. 155). Greensboro. NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Holmes. E. (1992). Leadership in the quest for quality. Issues & Obsen~ations. 12(3), 5-7.

Maccoby. M. ( 1976~. The gamcsman. New York: Simon & Schusrer.

Peters, T. (19873. Thriving on h ~ o s . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Zuckerman. M. R.. & Hatala L. J. (1992). Incredibly Americm: Releasing the heart of qualify. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press. ---

Elizabeth Holmes is a Senior Pro- gram Associate in the Leadership Innovations Group at the Center. She is Program Managerfcv “Leading a Quality Culture: Beyond the elateau. ”

~~ ~

Reprints If you would like a reprint of the feature in this number of Issues d Observations, please send $ 1 .OO each for up to 10 copies, $.75 each for 1 1-50 copies, or $.60 each for more than 50 copies. Shipping and handling is 5% of subtotal ($1 .00 minimum). Send to: Publica- tion, Center for Creative Leadership, P.O. Box 26300, Greensboro, NC 27438-6300.

Sketches by Cheryl De Ciantis PC

IMPORTANT PLEASE TAKE NOTE

Earlier this year, in a sidebar to an article in volume 13, number 1, a company designated as “American Business products” was featured in a case study. The sidebar failed to indicate that “‘American Business products” is not the real name of the company being discussed. Our readers should note that the company in this case study has no connection whatever to the actual company bearing this name. We regret this mistake and any confu- sion that it may have caused. [Editor]

POSTSCRIPT In an article by Kenneth P. De Meuse and Walter W. Tornow entitled “Leadership and the Changing Psychological Contract Between Employer and Employee,” which appeared in volume 13, number 2, of this publication, the authors inadvert- ently omitted references to Harry Levinson and Chris Argyris, two authors who originally dealt with the concept of a “psychological contract.’‘ These references are:

Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding organizational behavior. Homewood, IJL Dorsey Press.

Levinson, H., Price, C. R., Munden, K. J., Mandl, H. J., & Solley, C. M. ( 1962). Man, management and mental health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Please add these to your copy of the article.

’ is printed on recycled paper. 1 I

Total quality for americans

Documents

Transcript of Total quality for americans