tqm & employee

7/30/2019 TQM & Employee

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tqm-employee 1/10

I Academy of Management Executive, 1994 Vol. 8 No. 1

Total Quality Managementand employee involvement:

Are they compatible?Edward E. Lawler III

Executive Overview Total Quality Management (TQM) programs are an important and prominent

approach to management. With the creation ol the Baldrige award and the

competitiveness challenges which many corporations lace, they have become

extremely popular in (he United States during the last decade. Despite the

recent flurry oi studies questioning their eilectiveness, most large corporations

have a program that incorporates some oi the practices and principles oi total

quality management.^ One ol the most important principles ol TQM concerns

employee involvement or, as it is olten called, empowerment. It is common for TQM program to state that employee involvement is very important to its

success.

There is a long history of research and writing on employee involvement and

how it can allect organizational perlormance.^ It, too, has become increasingly

popular. One possibility, as suggested by TQM programs, is that employee

involvement is best thought ol as an activity which supports these programs.

Another possibility is that TQM practices are best used in support ol employee

involvement programs. Is the dilierence between TQM as a part ol involvement

and involvement as a part ol TQM more than just a difference in phrasing? Doe

the choice between these two alternatives have important implications lor the

way an organization is actually managed and structured? The answers to thesetwo questions contain important ciues about when and why TQM programs tail

and how they and employee involvement programs can be made effective. To

answer them we need to look brielly at the history ol both TQM and employee

involvement programs.

Total Quality Management

There is no single theoretical formulation of the total quality management

approach nor any definitive short list of practices that are associated with it. It

is the product of the work of such American quality experts as Deming, Juran,

a n d Crosby, and the work of an important Japanese expert, Ishikawa.^ Thewritings of these individuals as well as the application of their ideas in many

Japanese companies and some American companies, however, do allow us to

identify characteristics typical of most TQM programs.

Total quality management is best viewed as a management philosophy which

combines the teachings of Deming and Juran on statistical process control and

group problem-solving processes with Japanese values concerned with quality

a n d continuous improvement.^ The movement started to become popular in

Japan during the 1950s as it tried to recover from World War II. During the 1980

it has become increasingly popular in the United States and Europe most likely

a s a result of the success of Japanese firms in a number of global markets.

68



Lawler

Ouality and the definition of what constitutes i t in an organization's functionsand activities is a major focus of TQM. Customer reactions are regarded as thebest measure of qual i ty. TQM uses the idea of internal customers to subst i tutefor external customers in measuring the quality of many of the organization'soperat ions. I t regards focusing on qual i ty as a way to gain compet i t iveadvantage. It is often argued that if quality is improved, costs will drop and

organizations will respond more quickly and effectively to customer requests.

Total qual i ty management programs emphasize the importance of topmanagement act ing as the main dr iver of TQM act ivi t ies . The reasons for thisare multiple, but the most important focus on the view that TQM is a culture,not just a program. It is a culture in the sense that i t tries to change the valuesof the organizat ion and i ts employees as wel l as their behavior in mult ipleareas. Top management support is thought necessary to assure that the r ightpriorit ies are set and that commitment to the principles of TQM exist throughoutthe organizat ion. Total qual i ty management proponents emphasize the s t rongrole that management throughout the organizat ion must play.

According to such TQM adv ocate s as Deming, most qual i ty problem s are cau seby management and the systems they create and operate. Est imates of theproportion of quality problems that can be traced to worker performanceproblems range from twenty-five percent to less than ten percent. Employees arseen as having good ideas on how to improve qual i ty and as want ing to do agood job. In TQM programs they are asked to contr ibute their ideas and areoften given responsibili ty for monitoring quality. Managers, on the other hand,are seen as being responsible for the management systems and product ionsystems in organizat ions. They are asked to improve these so that theorganizat ion produces qual i ty products and services . Poor horizontal or lateralrelat ionships in the organizat ion are common management fai l ings that producquality problems. That is, different functions do not properly relate to eachother, nor do different employees.

The technologies used to support both qual i ty measurement and qual i tyimprovement are very vis ible elements of many TQM programs. A typicalprogram includes techniques that aid issue ident i f icat ion and problem solving.Most employees are t rained in their use. They include s tat is t ical process contromethods, measures of non-conformarice, cost of quality, cause and effectanalysis , and var ious group decis ion-making methods. These methods typical lyfocus on creat ing and using accurate product ion and qual i ty informat ion and onthe precise measurement and quant i f icat ion of problems.

Great emphasis is placed on including al l employees in the TQM cul ture. Thisis where employee involvement comes in. Employees are expected to takeresponsibili ty for quality in two important respects. They are expected to callat tent ion to qual i ty problems as they do their normal work. Perhaps moreimportant , they are expected to accept the cont inuous improvement cul ture andlook for ways that they can do their work better. They are also expected to lookfor ways in which the overall operation of the organization can be improved. Todo this, of course, they need skills and information as well as vehicles thatal low them to produce change.

Qual i ty ci rcles and improvement groups are the major vehicles used to al lowemployees to make suggest ions and change work processes. Often they work onproblems of lateral coordinat ion and, at t imes, of course, make suggest ions

6



Academy of Management Executive

Jobs or work at thelowest level arethought of asdesigned best whenindividuals or teamsdo a whole and

complete part of anorganization's workprocess.

about how to improve managerial systems, work methods, and workprocedures. In some cases, employees are encouraged to meet in their naturalwork groups to look for ways to talk about improved approaches and new workmethods. Emphasis is usual ly placed on work process s impli f icat ion andcodification. The objective is to create a simple work flow that has carefullyspecified work activities.

Typically, there is a substantial amount of quality information given toemployees in TQM programs. In many instances, this is the first t ime thatemployees have had t raining and val id informat ion about qual i ty. Also newmay be the chance to inf luence those work methods and work procedures thatinfluence quality. It is almost always the first t ime that they have had a chancto monitor their own qual i ty and to make decis ions about i ts adequacy.

Employee InvolvementJust as with TQM, there is no single authoritative source or theory to supportemployee involvement as a management approach.^ I t has a long his tory dat inback to ear ly research work on democrat ic leadership in work organizat ions. I t

includes wri t ings on job design, organizat ion design, and pay systems andorganizat ional change. The research work on democrat ic leadership whichstar ted in the 1930s emp hasized the conseq uenc es of employe e involvemen t indecis ion making. I t shows that under cer tain condi t ions employees are morecommit ted to decis ions and that bet ter decis ions are made i f they are involved

Another important part of the work on employee involvement concerns workdesign and its impact on intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. The work onindividual job enrichment , as wel l as the work on self-managing work teamsand sociotech work systems, forms a crit ical part of the historical thinking thathas been combined to deve lop management approaches tha t s t ress employeeinvolvement.^

Perhaps the most important overal l focus in the work on employee involvementconcerns locat ing decis ions at the lowest level in the organizat ion. Thisapproach cons i sten tly advoca tes a bot tom-up approach to ma nag em ent . Jobs owork at the lowest level are thought of as designed best when individuals orteams do a whole and complete par t of an organizat ion's work process . Inaddi t ion, i t i s argued that the individuals or teams should be given the power,informat ion, and knowledge they need to work autonomously or independent lyof man age m ent control an d direct ion. The job of man age me nt is see n a s one ofpreparing the individuals or teams to funct ion in an autonomous manner .Management is an enabler , cul ture set ter , and supporter rather than a directorof employee action.

The logical evolut ion of employee involvement programs is toward a substant if lat tening of the organizat ion and, in many cases, the el iminat ion of substant iamounts of staff and support work. This work is often seen as moving either ouof the organizat ion or being done at lower and lower levels in the organizat ionEmployee involvement programs st ress that substant ial amounts of the workdone by managers i s unnecessary because i t s imply suppor t s a command andcontrol approach to management which is not needed when employees areinvolved in their work and are capable of sel f -managing.

Some wri t ings on employee involvement place a s t rong emphasis on reward

70



Lawler

systems. They suggest combining par t icipat ion in decis ion making anddemocrat ic supervis ion with rewards for ski l l acquisi t ion and for organizat ionalper formance . ' Gainshar ing p lans , prof i t - shar ing p lans , and employeeownership are important reward system pract ices which are associated withemployee involvement efforts.

Organizat ional change is given a considerable amount of at tent ion in thebusiness l i terature on employee involvement . Bot tom-up change is s t ressed andin most cases , ret raining of supervisors and redesigning of work relat ionshipsat the first level of the organization are advocated as a good start . In manyrespects , employee involvement does not argue for a cont inuous improvementapproach so much as discont inuous change because i t ta lks of substant ial gainin organizational effectiveness as a result of moving to completely new workstructures and new ways of organizing work.

Differences Between Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management

There are some obvious overlaps with the l i terature on TQM and employeeinvolvement . Both see new roles for employees: taking on addi t ional

responsibi l i ty, being bet ter ski l led, and get t ing more and bet ter informat ion.Both also emphasize the need for improvements and changes in organizat ionalsystems and the need for managers to change their behavior and rolesdramatical ly. They also emphasize the importance of cul ture and thatorganizat ions are best viewed as complex, interrelated systems rather thancombinat ions of independent pieces.

The differences b etwe en TQM and employe e involvement are summ arized inTable 1. The differences begin with the type of outcomes on which they focus.There is nothing comparable in employee involvement to the focus of TQMprograms on qual i ty as an outcome. The work on employee involvement talksabout possible improvements in cost , speed, qual i ty, and employee wel l -being

and suggests that the type of gains sought in a par t icular s i tuat ion can andshould be a result of the organization's strategy and technology. In TQMprograms, qual i ty is f ront and center . Total qual i ty management programsemphasize that the other advantages such as improvements in costs and speedare der ived largely through qual i ty improvements .

TQM programs place relat ively l i t t le emphasis on rewards. The wri t ings dosometimes emphasize the importance of el iminat ing individual rewards,pay-for-performance systems, and management by object ives systems. There isalso the suggest ion that there should be greater use of recogni t ion rewards.Typically i t is argued that these should be given in return for groupaccomplishments or , perhaps, the development of new work methods and

procedures .

Table 1Differences Between TQM and Employee Involvement

Quality ImprovementManagement ControlProcess ImprovementWork SimplificationWork Process CodificationQuality CirclesInternal CustomersRecognition Rewards

v s .

v s .v s .

v s .v s .v s .v s .

v s .

Organizational EffectivenessSelf-ManagementOrganization DesignEnrichment/Work TeamsEmployee DiscretionWork TeamsFeedbackFinancial Rewards

7




In contrast to TQM programs, some employee involvement programs place paysystem change in a prominent position. Instead of simply trying to get pay as reward out of the picture so that i t does not get in the way, new programs aresugges ted . Gainshar ing , employee ownership , and sk i l l -based pay are used toincrease the amount of knowledge, informat ion, and decis ion making that exisat the lowest level of the organization. Particularly in the case of gainsharing,

the argument is of ten made that reward system changes are fundamental to aneffect ive relat ionship between an individual and an organizat ion. Tradi t ionaljob-based hierarchical reward systems are seen as cancel ing out or makingdifficult almost any substantial effort at employee involvement.

Employee involvement programs emphasize changing job designs and usingteam structures at the organization's lowest level. In one sense they try toundermine the hierarchy of the organizat ion by making i t unnecessary at thelowest level of the organizat ion. The self-managing team concept which comesout of the li terature on sociotech work design often leads to the creation of worgroups that need li t t le direct supervision. Thus, the first level of supervision isoften elimina ted, le ad ing to flat orga niza tional structu res in wh ich se ve ral

teams report to an area manager . Some advocates of sel f -managing teamsargue that i t is desirable for a team to control a whole business process. In theul t imate extension of employee involvement , a s ingle team deals with asupplier and a customer so that there is no need for the concept of internalcustomers. Carr ied to an extreme, the employee involvement ap proa ch le ad s tan organizat ion with few levels that is made up of many smal l autonomousteams , each of which has i ts own bottom-line profit responsibili ty.^ This t iesdirectly into the idea of employees being responsible for performance andcustomer satisfaction.

Total qual i ty management programs typical ly accept the exis t ing hierarchy antry to use i t to produce system improvements . They place more emphasis on

internal customer relat ionships and much less emphasis on rest ructur ing workand work s i tuat ions to make individuals and work teams more autonomous anindividually responsible for dealing with customers. They do not focus on workredesign to improve motivat ion. Sometimes work may be changed in a TQMprogram. Rather than being enriched it is usually simplified to fewer steps inthe work process, better specified activities, and often fewer employees. Somelevels of management, as well as staff personnel, may also be eliminated, but thidoes not appear to be a major focus in most TQM programs and writings on TQM

Substant ial emphasis is placed on paral lel problem-solving act ivi t ies in TQMprograms. Qual i ty ci rcles and other improvement processes are used to ident i fyhow work methods and procedures can be changed. Because the TQM approac

emphasizes paral lel problem solving i t of ten ends up requir ing the organizat ionto add s taff an d support personne l . These support personnel are u sed tofaci l i ta te problem-solving groups, to t rain them, and general ly to support thisextra act ivi ty. For this reason they sometimes add to the overhead s t ructure inan organizat ion rather than reduce i t . This has caused problems in someTQM-oriented companies . Employee involvement advocates suggest thatimprovement often can best be done by natural work teams if they are given thauthori ty, informat ion, and knowledge to make improvements in the workprocess and, of course, if they are responsible for a major portion of theproduction or service process.

A good contrast between the TQM and involvement ap pro ach es is provided by

72



Lawler

Employee involvementadvocaies suggesi

ihai improvemenioiien can besi be doneby naiural work ieamsil ihey are given iheauihoriiy, inlormaiion,and knowledge iomake improvemenisin ihe work processand, ol course, il iheyare responsible lor amajor poriion ol iheprodudion or service

process.

the newest approach that is used by Volvo to manufacture cars, an d the TQMapproach that is used by Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. In the TQM approach,assembly line teams are responsible for several steps in the production process.The teams are responsible for their own quality, are cross-trained, and in somecases can stop the assembly line process if there is a problem in their workarea.^ They are also responsible for continuous improvement of the work

process, but must get management approval before they can make changes inwork methods. In the much praised Toyota Lean Production System, the teammembers are cross-trained on all the tasks members must perform, are asked towork in a just-in-time inventory environment, and participate in quality circleactivities. In the Volvo approach, self-managing team s are respons ible forbuilding entire cars and interacting with customers. The teams get feedbackfrom customers on how well their cars perform. They control membership intheir team, determine their own work pace, and are responsible for workmethods and procedures.

Both the TQM and the employee involvement approach emphasize theimportance of managerial behavior and leadership. Nevertheless, there is a

difference between what is expected of a senior manager in the employeeinvolvement ap proach and what is expected in the TQM approa ch. The TQMapproach seems to place more emphasis on m anagers e ngaging in typicalmanagerial behavior such as monitoring performance, improving work methodsand work procedures, receiving input, processing suggestions, and facilitatingthe implementation of suggestions. Employee involvement programs emphasizethe leadership aspect of the manager's job. They stress vision, moving power toindividuals lower in the organization, and acting as a facilitator of the work ofothers.

There is no counterpart in employee involvement for many of the statistical andproblem analysis approaches that are present in the TQM program. Most

employee involvement programs do not emphasize statistical process control,cost of quality measures, and the other indices of quality that are so central tothe TQM programs. Qn the other hand, brainstorming, group decision making,and participative decision making are commonly suggested approaches by bothTQM and employee involvement program s. Most employee involvementprograms do not focus as much on customer satisfaction and expectations in themeasurement of organizational performance as do total quality approaches.

Finally, the change strategy in TQM programs is clearly different than it is inemployee involvement; the emphasis is on management leading the chan ge anputting the right information and control systems in place to improve quality.They are, of course, expected to find out about these by listening to suggestions

and reacting to the inputs from lower level employees.

TQM or Employee Involvement?There is little doubt that both employee involvement and TQM representsubstantial departures from the traditional bureaucratic approach to managingorganizations. Although neither is alway s effective, there is growing evidencethat both can lead to substantial improvements over traditional bureaucraticmanagement in a number of respects. It does not follow, however, that they arenecessarily interchangeable or even compatible. Indeed, although they sharesome common themes and place an emphasis on giving employees moreresponsibility, power, information, and knowledge, they are different in so

7




many important ways that they are not interchangeable. Because theyrecomm end different ap proa che s to rew ards, lead ersh ip, work s tructure,organizat ion s t ructure, and even a different emphasis on the kinds of outcomesthat are to be maximized in the organizat ion, they are incompat ible in someimportant respects .

There is l i t t le systematic theory or research that points to whether the TQM orthe employee involvement approach is the best management approach for anorganizat ion. I t i s unl ikely that ei ther one is always the superior approach tomanagement. Rather, i t is l ikely that the relative effectiveness of each may be funct ion of factors such as technology, cul tural values, and business s t rategyand as one s tudy suggests , the performance level of the organizat ion. '°

The success of some Japanese organizat ions that use the TQM approachsuggests that i t may be par t icular ly effect ive in Japan because there are anumber of cultural conditions that favor i t . These conditions most l ikely includa homogeneous set of values that place an emphasis on qual i ty, a t tent ion todetai l , and discipl ine, as wel l as an acceptance of hierarchy and senior i ty."

The United States , wi th i ts emphasis on democracy and individual r ights , butwith l i t t le emphasis on at tent ion to detai l and qual i ty, presents qui te a differenscene a nd one in which the TQM approac h, par t icular ly in i ts pure form, doe snot appear to fi t as well .

Perhaps the key issue, however, in determining the relative fit of TQM andemployee involvement is the type of work the organization does. There iss ignif icant research w hich arg ues that the TQM app roac h wo rks par t icular lywel l in high-volume product ion s i tuat ions. '^ The employee involvementapproach, however , has of ten been used in cont inuous, process product ionsi tuat ions that are capi tal intensive and require relat ively complex coordinat ioact ivi t ies .

The employee involvement approach may be superior in s i tuat ions where thework is pr imari ly creat ive and where the organizat ion faces an extremelyrapidly changing environment . Qften, in these environments , cont inuousimprovement is not needed so much as major breakthroughs in innovat ion andspeed. Accomplishing these object ives of ten requires giving smal l groups ofindividuals high amounts of autonomy and direct external customer demands sthat they can be at tuned to the market and very quick in their responses.

Employee involvement seems to f i t wel l in rather smal l organizat ional uni tswhich are created to produce ent i re products and serve a par t icular customerbase. Total qual i ty management processes tend to f i t s i tuat ions where large

numbers of employees are required to service a customer or produce a productExamples include the type of large-scale manufactur ing that exis ts in the autoindustry and large service centers such as those operated by Federal Express .

The employee involvement approach may be par t icular ly appropriate when theorganizat ion's business s t rategy cal ls for organizat ional behavior that combinequick responses to customers with cost-effective performance and quality. Theem ph asi s on quality in TQM is often qu ite functional, bu t i t can bedysfunctional if i t diverts attention from the importance of speed in decisionmaking and the costs of operat ing many of the qual i ty improvement processeswhich are inherent in TQM prog ram s. It can lea d to extensive bure auc rat icme asure men t and support systems an d to para l lel par t icipat ion syste ms . These

74



Lawler

Where orders olmagniiiide changes are

needed inperformance,employee involvemeni

may be ihe besichoice smce ii siressesradical change raiherihan coniinuous

improvemeni.

sys tems , in turn, can raise the cost of the organizat ion to the point where it failsto achieve the cost and qual i ty performance parameters that wi l l posi t ion its

products or services wel l in the market . It is par t i a l ly because of these problemsthat organizat ions sometimes report that their TQM programs are fai l ing.

One final point is sugges ted bythe discussion so far. Where orders of

magni tude changes a re needed in performance, employee involvement may bethe best choice since it st resses radical change rather than cont inuousimprovement . It also suggests organizat ion and work design approaches thatare more likely to be outside of the organizat ion's current way of thinking abouthow work should be done. There is also evidence that the use of some TQMpract ices such as benchmarking are not effective in low-performing companies .

Managem en t in the FutureTotal qual i ty management and employee involvement represent important , butsomewhat different, alternatives to the t rad i tiona l man agem ent parad igm tha thas been dominant in the United States and throughout the world for most ofthe twent ieth century. It may end up that nei ther TQM nor employee

involvement becomes the dominant paradigm for the next century. Qur analysissuggests that may be the best outcome. What appears to be needed is acontingent view of what cons t i tu tes the bes t management approach. Dependingupon the organization's condition, strategic orientation, the kind of work itn e e d s todo, and where it opera tes , the bes t management approach may beeither one of these in itspure form or an approach that modif ies each to t akea d v a n t a g e of cer tain elements in the other. '^ Even when a relat ively pureversion of ei ther is called for, it sti l l seems likely that it can be e n h a n c e d byadopt ing some of the most appropriate elements of the o ther approach. Forexam pl e , it seems obvious that most employee involvement efforts can beenhanced byus ing some of the statistical process control, problem-solving, andwork simplification processes that are an important par t of TQM efforts. It isalso qui te possible that problem-solving teams and qual i ty ci rcles can be us ed

t o advan t age in combinat ion with the sel f-managing work teams and the jobenrichment approaches that are par t of the employee involvement approach.

Similarly, it is qui te possible that some of the reward system pract icesadvoca ted by employee involvement programs can improve TQM efforts.Ski l l -based pay can encourage and reward the type of skill growth that isneeded forTQM programs to be effect ive. Gainsharing plans, prof i tshar ingp l ans , and employee ownership can provide employees with a strongmotivation for making suggest ions that can contr ibute to the kind of qual i ty andcustomer sat isfact ion-or iented cul ture necessary for TQM prog rams to be

successful . Indeed, TQM programs seem toput far too much faith in the abili tyof senior managers tochange their organizat ions and to get em pl oyees tocommit to improved qual i ty. They also, perhaps, overrate the impact ofrecogni t ion type rewards in cul tures where f inancial rewards play an impor tantrole in inf luencing individual behavior . Thus, they may be enhanced by us i ngfinancial rewards.

Some evidence in support of the view that par ts of TQM an d em ployeeinvolvement can be compat ib le is provided by a study of large corporat ions. '^ Itfound the most effective organizations to be ones that had integrated orcoordinated TQM andemployee involvement programs . This a rgues aga ins tins ta l l ing the s tandardized change "packages" tha t are offered by m anyconsulting firms. The preferred approach is todesign programs that ut i l ize the

7




ideas and techniques from both TQM and employee involvement that fit thespecifics of an organization's situation. Doing this requires a well-developedbusiness strategy and a good understanding of both approaches and howappropriate they are in different business settings. It also suggests that futureresearch needs to focus on when and how specific practices affectorganizational performance.

Endnotes ' Data on its popularity can be found in E.E.Lawler, G.E. Ledford, and S.A. Mohrman,Employee Involvement in America (Houston, TX:Am erican Pro ductivity Ce nter, 1989); an d E.E.Lawler, S.A. Mohrman, and G.E. Ledford,Employee Involvement and Total QualityManag ement: Practices and Results in Forfune1000 Companies (San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass, 1992).

^ Review s of this history a re found in E.E.Lawler, High Involvement Management (SanFran cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1986); an d M.R.

Weisbord, ProductiveWorkplaces: Organizing

and Managing for Dignity. Meaning an dCommunity (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,1987).

' Major works in the field on quality includeW.E. Deming, Out of the Crisis (Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1986), and J.M. Juran, Juran onLeadership for Quality (New York, NY: FreePress, 1989).

* See J.J . Sullivan, "Japanese ManagementPhilosophies from the Vacuous to the Brilliant,"California Management Review. 34(2), 1992,66-87.

^ For a recen t review , s ee E.E. Lawler, Th eUltimate Advantage (San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass, 1992).

^ A good o verview of this w ork can be foundin J.R. Hackman and G.R. Oldham, WorkRedesign (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,1980).

' See E.E. Lawler, Strategic Pay (SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1990).

' See D.Q. Mills, flebirfh of the Corporation(New York, NY: Wiley, 1991).

^ This approach is highly pra ised by J.P.Womack, D.T. Jones, and D. Roos, The MachinThat Changed the World (New York, NY:Macmillan, 1990).

'° Best Practices Report. American QualityFound ation an d Ernst & Young." R.E. Cole, Work Mobility and Participation

(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,1979).

'^ The previously mentioned book. TheMachine that Changed the World, providescons iderable data .

'^ The following article prese nts an exam pleof this type of contingency thinking: D.E.Bowen and E.E. Lawler, "The Empowermentof Service Workers: What, Why, How andWhen," Sioan Management fleview, 33(3), 199231-40.

'•* Lawler. Mohrman, Ledford, 1992, op.cit.

About the Author Edward E. Lawler III is a professor of management and organization in the business school at theUniversity of Southern California. He has been honored as a top contributor to the fields oforganizational development, organizational behavior and compensation, and is the author of over200 articles and twenty books. His most recent books include: High Involvement Management.Strategic Pay (Jossey-Bass, 1990), Employee Involvement and Total Quality Mana gement(Jossey-Bass, 1990), The Ultimate Advantage (Jossey-Bass, 1992), and Organizing for the Future(Jossey-B ass, 1993).

For permission to reproduc e this article, contact: Academy of Management, P.O. Box 209, Ada, OH 45810

76

tqm & employee

Documents