Total Quality Management

Vol. 17, No. 1, 41 –60, January 2006

A Theory of Leadership for Quality:

Lessons from TQM for Leadership
Theory1

C. LAKSHMAN
Department of Management & Marketing, Virginia State University, Petersburg, USA

ABSTRACT Despite their implications for the management of quality in organizations, leadership
theories have not explicitly focused on quality and on the role of leaders as managers of quality.
Building on recent attempts in the leadership and total quality management literatures, this
article develops a theory of leadership for quality, focusing on leader traits, values, and
behaviours based on underlying TQM principles. Contributions of the TQM literature to the
leadership literature are identified and discussed. A set of leader traits, values, and behaviours
are extracted from the TQM philosophy and integrated into an articulation of a theory of
leadership based on these constructs. The core principles of TQM are addressed and a number of
propositions are developed, identifying both generic and specific leader behaviours in the
domains of customer focus, teamwork and participation, and continuous improvement. The theory
developed here makes incremental contributions by examining these hitherto unexamined
behaviours in the leadership literature. The framework adds value to the literature by embedding
key leadership constructs in organizational processes. Contributions to the TQM and leadership
literature, limitations of the approach, and implications for research and practice are discussed.

KEY WORDS : Leadership, total quality management, theory

Introduction
The role of managing quality is essential in today’s environment, as evidenced by the
popularity of the TQM movement and the success it has brought to a number of organiz-
ations (Easton & Jarrell, 1998; Douglas & Judge, 2001; Hendricks & Singhal, 1997).
However, the role of leadership in managing quality is relatively unaddressed in the
leadership literature. Despite the acknowledgement of the construct validity of the Total
Quality Management philosophy by organizational behaviour researchers (Hackman &
Wageman, 1995) and its importance to the field of management theory (e.g. Anderson
et al., 1994; Dean & Bowen, 1994; Spencer, 1994), research on quality management as

Correspondence Address: C. Lakshman, Department of Management & Marketing, Virginia State University,
PO Box 9209, Petersburg, VA 23806, USA. Email: clakshma@vsu.edu

1478-3363 Print=1478-3371 Online=06=010041–20 # 2006 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080=14783360500249729
42 C. Lakshman

a legitimate role of leaders has not received much attention (Waldman, 1993) in any of the
approaches to leadership research (see House & Aditya, 1997 for a review of the multiple
approaches). Thus, the potential for integrating the leadership literature with the quality
management literature is great and is likely to be beneficial for both theory and practice.
This article is an attempt at such integration of the leadership and quality management
literatures.
The growing literature on total quality management stresses the importance of TQM to
organizational performance and has repeatedly stressed the lack of leadership support for
the failure of many TQM initiatives. Some investigators have examined the implemen-
tation of total quality management and its impact on organizational performance (e.g.
Douglas & Judge, 2001; Jayaram et al., 1999), with both sets of researchers identifying
strong positive relationships between the implementation of total quality management
and performance (see also Hendricks & Singhal, 1997).
Several researchers in the total quality and management literatures have pointed to the
importance of the role of leadership in managing quality (e.g. Anderson et al., 1994; Dean
& Bowen, 1994; Repenning & Sterman, 2002). Hackman & Wageman’s (1995) analysis
concluded that the founders of the movement view quality as the ultimate and inescapable
responsibility of top management. There seems to be a strong consensus among the foun-
ders of the quality movement as far as the importance of leadership to managing quality is
concerned, as evidenced by their writings (Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1986; Feigenbaum,
1983; Juran, 1994), with all of these founders viewing quality as a leadership responsibil-
ity and viewing TQM principles as being principles of leadership.
The purpose of this article is to build on the leadership and quality management litera-
tures and develop a theory of leadership, focusing explicitly on the role of leaders as
quality managers at multiple levels of analysis. Several researchers (see House &
Aditya, 1997; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999) have called for such theory development
in the leadership literature. Accordingly, following established guidelines for theory build-
ing (Bacharach, 1989; Sutton & Staw, 1995; Weick, 1995; Whetten, 1989), this article
builds a theoretical framework of leadership for quality around the core principles of
the total quality management philosophy to address broad organizational concerns such
as effectiveness and survival. The theory presented in this article views leadership as a
responsibility and capability of managers at multiple levels in the organization. The
core principles of total quality management suggest that leaders in any organization,
regardless of their hierarchical level of functioning, focus on customers and continuous
improvement by continuously involving people. Therefore, the theory developed here
suggests that people at various levels in the organization should be seen from the perspec-
tive of their potential capabilities to lead others to achieve the objectives associated with
the three core principles suggested by the quality gurus.
This research departs from that of Waldman’s (1993) by directly identifying and articu-
lating the values, behaviours, and policies associated with total quality management and
its associated philosophy to the examination of leadership. Deming’s (1986) argument
that his views are in fact statements of good principles of leadership suggests that the beha-
viours associated with total quality management are themselves appropriate leadership
behaviours, i.e. the ‘what’ of the theory (Whetten, 1989) developed here. Consequently,
it is possible to extract from the total quality management philosophy, a set of traits,
values, and behaviours that can lead to positive outcomes for organizations, along the
lines of Anderson et al.’s (1994) articulation of a theory underlying the Deming
 A Theory of Leadership for Quality 43

management method. Such an articulation leads to the identification of crucial leader

behaviours in the domains of customer focus, teamwork, and continuous improvement,
two of which have not been examined in the leader behaviour literature. This article
thus attempts to identify the contributions of the total quality management philosophy
to the leadership literature and then generates propositions from the main principles of
that philosophy identified by both the founders of the quality movement and by manage-
ment researchers.
The three core principles of total quality management, namely, customer focus, team-
work & participation, and continuous improvement (Dean & Bowen, 1994), provide a
comprehensive set of principles for effective leadership. Thus, a quality focused theory
of leadership would suggest that leader traits and behaviours should be organized
around a broad set of responsibilities that encompasses focusing on customers (both exter-
nal and internal) and getting everyone in the organization to achieve customer focus and
continuous improvement, a set of behaviours not typically considered in the leadership
literature.
I first identify the contributions of the TQM philosophy to the leadership literature. The
role of leadership in quality management as suggested by the TQM literature is then briefly
reviewed. The literature that has focused on either the impact of leaders or the effect of top
management orientations on quality programs is then integrated with the quality and
leadership literatures to aid in the development of a theory of leadership for quality. An
initial theory is then presented by building on the three core principles of TQM and
framing propositions around each of these principles, considering relevant literatures in
the leadership area. I then conclude with the contributions made here to the TQM and
leadership literatures and a discussion of the implications for future research and practice.

TQM Contributions to the Leadership Literature

Leadership has been a key topic of research and practical interest for a number of decades.
Research on leadership has taken a number of different perspectives such as the trait
approach, the behavioural approach, the contingency approach, and the charismatic
approach (House & Aditya, 1997; Yukl, 2002). Despite their implications for the manage-
ment of quality in organizations, these theories have not explicitly focused on quality and
on the role of leaders as managers of quality. Much of the theory and research frameworks
developed focus on leadership as a key managerial role. Within this framework of viewing
leadership as a key managerial role, leaders have been seen as people managers, task
managers, communicators, inspirers, and information processors, but not as managers of
quality. This study contributes to the literature by examining both the traits and behaviours
of leaders as quality managers.

Managers versus Leaders

Kotter (1990) is one of the few researchers who have specifically addressed the issue of the
difference between leadership and management. Much of the leadership literature treats
the two concepts as synonymous and there is a lack of agreement and a strong debate
in the literature on this issue (e.g. Hunt et al., 1982). Kotter (1990) surveyed a large
number of executives and asked them to provide ratings of people in their managerial
hierarchies on the dimensions of both leadership and management, based on their own
44 C. Lakshman

definitions of the dimensions. The results suggest three important ideas that can be used
to create a distinction between the two dimensions. First, very few people are seen as
having both strong leadership and management skills. Second, very few people are seen
as having strong leadership skills but weak managerial skills. Third, a large number of
people have strong management skills but weak leadership skills. This leads one to con-
clude that strong managers are not necessarily strong leaders and are thus not able to
provide good leadership. Strong leaders however, are not weak managers. The perspective
taken in this study, with respect to this distinction, is that leadership is conceptually
broader than management and that leaders provide much more to their organizations
than managers. This view is consistent with the writings of a number of other researchers
(e.g. Bennis, 1989; Zaleznik, 1977).
Conceptually, leadership can be seen as that combination of traits, values, attitudes, and
behaviours that result in the effective long-term performance of organizations. This defi-
nition draws on the trait, behavioural, contingency, and other macro approaches to the
study of leadership. Whereas Kotter (1990) separates the concepts of leadership and man-
agement, the perspective taken here is that leaders are first and foremost managers and thus
have the responsibilities of both management and of leadership. The similarity with
Kotter’s view is that not all people in positions of leadership actually provide leadership.
More specifically, all leaders need to be managers but not all managers are necessarily
leaders. Thus, both (seemingly) routine behaviours, such as team design and structuring
behaviours, and ultimate leadership behaviours (Kotter, 1990), such as institutionalizing
a culture of quality, and continuous improvement and customer focus behaviours, are
included in the realm of leadership behaviours in the theory developed here.
This study contributes to the literature by focusing on leadership in the context of organ-
izational processes and examining directly the specific and generic leader behaviours
associated with TQM principles, as opposed to the generic leader behaviour dimensions
traditionally examined. House & Aditya (1997) have pointed out that leadership research
has ignored the organizational context within which leaders work to the extent that a look
at the literature might lead one to believe that leaders work in a vacuum. A consideration
of the total quality management philosophy and its component principles can help identify
a number of broad organizational factors embedded within the principles of TQM that
have not been considered in the traditional literature on leadership. Several researchers
(Anderson et al., 1994; Dean & Bowen, 1994) suggest that the core ideas of TQM
within the context of management of process quality are that organizations are sets of
interlinked processes, and that improvement of these processes is the foundation of
performance improvement. Many of the theories of leadership take a behavioural and
psychological approach, focusing on dyadic processes as opposed to organizational pro-
cesses such as quality, leading to calls in the literature for examination of leadership
without the exclusion of the organizational processes in which it is embedded (House &
Aditya, 1997). Further, there are also calls for the examination of specific leader beha-
viours, such as the total quality oriented behaviours, as opposed to the generic leader
behaviour dimensions identified by the behavioural approach to the study of leadership
(House & Aditya, 1997). This study answers both of these calls.
The TQM literature makes three specific contributions to the leadership literature that
can be utilized to build a comprehensive theoretical framework of leadership for
quality. First, the TQM notion of participation and teamwork is broader and more wide-
spread in the organization than is conceptualized in the leadership literature. Second,
 A Theory of Leadership for Quality 45

the TQM philosophy’s concern for customer focus and continuous improvement and its
stress on recognition of these elements by the organization’s leaders is lacking in the
leadership literature. Third, the TQM literature stresses the importance of managers and
employees at all levels in the organization, which is also wanting in the leadership
literature.

Teamwork and Participation

Participation and teamwork is one of the core principles of the TQM philosophy that has
not been addressed completely in the leadership literature, within the context of organiz-
ation-wide quality management. The Vroom & Yetton (1973) theory of leader partici-
pation, dominant in the leadership literature, is focused on decision making and does
not address organization wide participation in managing quality. Moreover, participatory
decision making is only one of the options in this theory whereas the TQM literature sees
teamwork and participation (in the operation and ongoing improvement of processes) as
the default. Participation and teamwork from the point of view of quality management
needs to be organization wide and not limited to specific decisions. Thus, a theory of
leadership for quality needs to address the role of leaders as enhancing organization
wide participation and teamwork.

Customer Focus and Continuous Improvement

From the point of view of the TQM literature, the leadership literature is also wanting in
terms of specifically addressing the role of leadership in emphasizing customer focus and
continuous improvement (the other core principles of TQM) for enhancing organizational
effectiveness. For example, the ‘Big-five’ personality trait of ‘openness to experience’
may potentially be related to leadership effectiveness in terms of continuous improvement
efforts of a total quality initiative. Alternately, customer-focus behaviours and continuous
improvement behaviours, such as change-oriented behaviours in Yukl’s (2002) three-actor
taxonomy of leader behaviours may be related to leadership effectiveness. These have
been relatively unaddressed theoretically and empirically in the leadership literature.

Leadership at Multiple Levels

The TQM perspective suggests that the involvement and participation of managers and
employees at all levels is important to the successful management of quality in organiz-
ations. From this perspective, the leadership literature lacks focus on leadership at all
levels in the organization. Organizational behaviour theorists have generally confined
leadership and its effects to the individual, dyadic, or small group levels of analysis
(see Waldman & Yammarino, 1999). Much of the leadership literature, with the exception
of the charismatic and transformational approaches, focuses on the study of leadership at
the supervisory level and thus leader behaviours of supervisors or lower level managers.
The management of quality in organizations is likely to be impacted by the role leaders
play at all levels in the organization, as evidenced by the widespread focus on top manage-
ment commitment by a number of researchers (e.g. Choi & Behling, 1997; Jayaram et al.,
1999). Thus, there is a need for a theory of leadership that focuses explicitly on the role of
leaders as managers of quality at different levels in the organization.
46 C. Lakshman

The Role of Leadership in Quality Management

Many quality experts believe that the key to successful management of quality begins at
the top of the organization. The TQM literature argues that because senior managers create
the organizational systems that determine how products and services are designed and pro-
duced, the quality improvement process must begin with management’s own commitment
to total quality. Thus, creating and designing systems that have an impact on how products
and services are produced, and fostering organizational culture (Waldman, 1993) is the
responsibility of leadership at the top of the organization. Leadership at other levels in
the organization is in the form of team design and coaching behaviours (Wageman,
2001) and in the use of appropriate ‘control’ and ‘exploration’ structuring behaviours
(Douglas & Judge, 2001). These and other behaviours such as systematic experimentation
behaviours and implementing participation system behaviours are articulated in the theory
developed here as key behaviours of middle and lower level leaders, thereby extending the
literature’s attention to these specific behaviours at different levels.
A number of commonalities between transformational leadership and the leadership views
of the total quality management philosophy have been discussed (Dean & Bowen, 1994) from
the point of view of (a) communication and reinforcement of values and (b) articulation and
implementation of vision, and (c) visionary leadership in the form of defining, communicat-
ing, and motivating continuous improvement (Anderson et al., 1994). A facet of TQM that
views organizations as interlinked processes (Dean & Bowen, 1994), suggests that those pro-
cesses need to be managed from the point of view of continuous improvement and enhancing
customer focus, a set of behaviours that have not been investigated. Thus, the principles of
TQM implicitly contain relevant roles for leadership, in addition to those identified in the lea-
dership literature, that need to be articulated. This article builds on and extends this prior work
by identifying the core principles identified by both these researchers and the founders of the
quality movement and then generating propositions around those leadership behaviours.
Waldman’s (1993) theoretical consideration of leadership, in the context of managing
quality, linked variables such as organizational culture, leadership, total quality oriented
behaviours and policies, and outcomes of total quality efforts in a preliminary attempt
at deriving the theoretical linkages among these constructs, which stopped short of devel-
oping testable propositions. Most of the other work in the literature on leadership in the
context of quality initiatives is in the form of inductive approaches and case studies.
Waldman (1993) presented a reciprocal link between leadership and organizational
culture but argued for a stronger unidirectional link from leadership to organizational
culture in a later inductive study (Waldman et al., 1998). This article extends and
builds on Waldman’s work, by arguing for a stronger impact of leadership on organiz-
ational culture that then subsequently impacts values, attitudes, and behaviours of individ-
uals in organizations attempting to manage for quality. By focusing directly on the total
quality oriented behaviours and policies and identifying appropriate leadership beha-
viours, in addition to values and attitudes, based on consistency with the philosophy of
total quality management, our framework adds value to the extant approaches. Thus, in
addition to focusing on the broad range of behaviours such as inspiring vision, encoura-
ging change, and intellectual stimulation, this article articulates more specific behaviours
organized around the broad principles of total quality management. For instance, work on
teams and group processes (e.g. Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Wageman, 2001) is used here to
focus on and develop functional leadership behaviours in the context of teams.
 A Theory of Leadership for Quality 47

The role of leadership at the top management levels in successfully managing quality
has been addressed by many case studies, examining issues such as the attitudes of top
managers that are necessary for effectively managing quality (e.g. Choi & Behling,
1997), the struggles faced by organizations in implementing total quality management
(e.g. Rago, 1996), leadership styles that are used in implementing TQM in organizations
(e.g. Savolainen, 2000), the impact of leadership roles on quality initiatives and the inter-
relationship between organizational culture and leadership (Waldman et al., 1998). The
general consensus of the authors of these case studies is that organizations that success-
fully manage quality tend to have leaders that can effectively involve people at multiple
levels in the organization and motivate them to participate in, and as, teams in the manage-
ment of quality. This consensus among the various case studies relates to the value of the
three core principles of the TQM philosophy and its utility in providing the basis for a
theoretical framework that can make significant contributions to the leadership and
TQM literatures. Values related to the three core principles of customer focus, continuous
improvement, and teamwork are suggested to be imperative for leaders to successfully
lead organizations through total quality transformations (Youngdahl et al., 1998).

A Theory of Leadership for Quality

The theoretical framework of leadership for quality developed here builds on the three
core principles of total quality management and develops propositions around each of
the principles. The three generally accepted core principles of total quality management
– namely customer focus, participation and teamwork, and continuous improvement –
provide the building blocks of the theory of leadership for quality, with the associated
values and behaviours of leaders forming the key constructs of the theory.
The theoretical framework built here (see Figure 1) focuses on the values, traits, and
behaviours of leaders at multiple levels in the organization. Based on the theoretical

Figure 1. Theoretical framework of leadership for quality

48 C. Lakshman

and case study evidence, values closely aligned to the three principles of total quality
management are theorized to enhance the outcomes such as quality performance and
other outcomes, through their influence on leader behaviours. Specifically, the extent
to which leaders value focusing on customers (both internal and external), the extent to
which they value teamwork and participatory processes, and the extent to which they
value systematic experimentation for continuous improvement purposes are identified
as the values held by leaders in organizations that pertain to the effective management
of quality. These are expanded upon and described in the following sections.
This theoretical framework identifies leader values as the driving force that influences both
leader behaviours and eventual outcomes. The view that firmly held human values drive
human behaviours has been an established fact in the organizational behaviour literature
for a long time and in the leadership realm for some time now (e.g., Conger & Kanungo,
1987; England & Lee, 1974). Firmly held leader values affect leader behaviour by affecting
their perceptions of situations and problems, the solutions they generate, their interpersonal
relationships, and their acceptance or rejection of organizational pressures and goals
(England & Lee, 1974). Leader values are also likely to form the basis for the vision they
develop and the cultures they foster in organizations (e.g. Waldman & Yammarino, 1999).
In this theoretical context, the set of values associated with the three core principles of
TQM are proposed to lead to the corresponding leader communication behaviours. Partici-
pation and teamwork values of leaders are proposed to be related to team design behaviours,
structuring behaviours, and implementing participation system behaviours. Continuous
improvement values of leaders and the leader trait of ‘intellectance’ (e.g. Barrick &
Mount, 1991) are proposed to be related to systematic experimentation behaviours.
Leaders high in intellectance tend to be imaginative, curious, and experiment with new
ways, rather than doing things the tried-and-true way (e.g. Hughes et al., 2002). Leader
values of information sharing and analysis, a key Baldridge award criterion, are proposed
to be related to both their experimentation behaviours and participatory behaviours.
In addition to values held by leaders at multiple levels in the organization, the theoretical
framework developed here focuses on leader behaviour at multiple levels in the organization.
Leader behaviours in terms of communicating the importance of both internal and external
customers, communicating the importance of continuous improvement of processes and out-
comes, and emphasizing the importance of organization-wide participation and teamwork are
all leader behaviours associated with the management of quality in organizations.
In addition, a number of specific leader behaviours, as opposed to the traditional generic
behavioural dimensions, are discussed as components of the theoretical framework devel-
oped here. Leader behaviours such as the implementation and facilitation of participation
systems, and the implementation of several processes related to teams (e.g. team design,
careful hiring, scheduling, training etc) focus on the achievement of teamwork and partici-
pation. Leader behaviours aligned with the principle of continuous improvement such as
the design and implementation of systematic trials of experimentation to separate signal
and noise variables in terms of their impact on processes and outcomes are also identified
and discussed.
Several mediating variables in the form of participation effectiveness, and teamwork
effectiveness are seen to result from the leader behaviours, that then lead to the outcomes.
The major outcomes in the theoretical framework identified above are leader effective-
ness, quality, and unit performance. Leader effectiveness, consistent with the literature,
is defined both in terms of objective outcomes such as quality performance, and
 A Theory of Leadership for Quality 49

effectiveness of continuous improvement efforts, and through subjective outcomes such as

the satisfaction and commitment of subordinates in the unit and leadership ratings. The
propositions that form the major components of the theoretical framework are identified
and developed in the following sections.

Customer Focus
Generally, the term customers, in the quality management literature, refers to both internal
and external customers. Internal customers arise when the output of some organizational
members is passed on to others or when the work of some organizational members
depends on that of others in the organization. The TQM literature typically defines the
next process down the line as the internal ‘customer’ (e.g. Ishikawa, 1985). Drawing
broadly from an open systems view of organizations (Thompson, 1967), it may be ben-
eficial to view different levels in the management hierarchy as internal suppliers and
customers to other corresponding levels. If internal customers are defined as those whose
work depends on that of others, managers, subordinates, and other departments can all
be viewed as customers of the focal individual or organizational unit and they become
part of the customer focus. Consistent with TQM principles, the assessment of these cus-
tomers’ requirements serves as a tool to foster cross-functional and cross-hierarchical
cooperation (Ishikawa, 1985) in achieving overall organizational objectives. Conse-
quently, from a leadership point of view, those who focus on and assess the requirements
of all internal customer groups are likely to be more effective than those who do not focus
on such internal customers. Thus, focusing on customers at multiple levels in the hierarchy
and also at different horizontal levels becomes a key leadership responsibility. For an indi-
vidual at any particular level, the customers are (1) their subordinates, (2) their managers
at higher levels, and (3) other departments or groups of people that traditionally take on the
role of internal customers. Leaders need to focus on all of these customer groups and their
satisfaction to achieve total quality. The behavioural approach to the study of leadership
(e.g. the Ohio State and Michigan studies) focusing almost exclusively on subordinates,
deals with task- and relationship-oriented behaviours which may or may not be inherently
customer-focused (House & Aditya, 1997). Thus, this core principle of TQM philosophy
highlights the value of customer focus and adds the crucial leader behaviours vis-à-vis
‘customers’ to the realm of leader behaviours.
Choi & Behling (1997) argued that top managers who viewed customers as partners in a
cooperative relationship and aimed to satisfy these customers were more effective in
leading their organizations to be effective than others. Moreover, the concept of market
orientation in the marketing literature (e.g. Slater & Narver, 1994) suggests that customer
orientation on the part of organizational executives is likely to have a strong relationship to
organizational performance. Thus, leaders who focus on internal and external customers
and their satisfaction are more likely to be effective than others. In addition to their
own focus on internal and external customers, the leader’s role consists of highlighting
the importance of the unit’s internal customers as well as external customers to everyone
in the unit. The importance of the internal customers of the unit and the need for the unit to
satisfy the needs of those internal customers should be first and foremost according to prin-
ciples of quality management. The effectiveness of quality leaders will vary as a direct
function of the degree to which they effectively communicate such internal customer
needs and their importance to the unit members. Therefore, we have Propositions 1 and 2.
50 C. Lakshman

Proposition 1
The degree to which leaders communicate the importance of internal and external custo-
mers to the unit members will be positively related to the unit’s performance.

Proposition 2
The degree to which leaders view their internal and external customers as partners in a
cooperative relationship will be positively related to the unit’s performance.

Participation and Teamwork

The effect of organizational culture on performance is documented to a reasonable degree
(see Kotter & Heskett, 1992). The notion that leaders are instrumental in shaping the
organization’s culture and climate is well accepted in the literature (e.g. Kets de Vries
& Miller, 1986; Burns, 1978; Spencer, 1994; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). Consistent with
the view of the founders of the TQM movement that the essential responsibility of the
leaders at the top of the organization is to create and design systems that enhance the pro-
duction and delivery of quality products and services, it is argued here that creating an
organizational culture of participation and teamwork is a key leadership responsibility.
This is also consistent with Kotter’s (1990) suggestion that the institutionalizing a
culture of leadership is the ultimate act of leadership. The TQM literature specifically
emphasizes the value of various teams of individuals such as cross-functional teams
and task forces (see Hackman & Wageman, 1995) for effectively managing quality in
organizations.
Consistent with Hackman and Wageman (1995), Waldman (1993) suggests that TQM-
oriented cultures have values and norms conducive to learning, information sharing, and a
holistic approach to problem solving. More specifically, Waldman (1993) suggests that
information is frequently shared both vertically and horizontally without people fearing
the loss of power and status. Further, groups in a TQM culture value working together
cooperatively to solve problems and enhance quality. Waldman et al.’s (1998) inductive
study highlighted the possibility of a potential leadership process through which a quality
culture shift can be achieved in an organization.
Rago’s (1996) case study highlights the struggles of most organizations attempting to
manage quality in terms of having trouble in getting people at various levels to participate
and work together in teams in the effort to manage the quality of the operations. Partici-
pation of managers and employees at all levels can be enhanced when leaders at each level
institutionalize a culture that facilitates such participation. Several case examples point to
the relationship between the degree to which participation is facilitated in organizations
through the creation of systems and the actual participation of members in these organiz-
ations (e.g. Moore, 1996; Taylor, 1995). Thus, there is both a theoretical and empirical
basis to expect a relationship between leadership behaviours and participation by organ-
izational members. Further, there is also a theoretical and empirical basis to expect a
relationship between levels of participation and actual performance and satisfaction of
individuals and organizational subunits (e.g. Wagner, 1994) and the overall impact of
such participation as part of a TQM-oriented culture on organizational performance
(e.g. Douglas & Judge, 2001; Hendricks & Singhal, 1997; Powell, 1995).
 A Theory of Leadership for Quality 51

The underlying rationale for the relationship between participation and the resulting sat-
isfaction and performance can mainly be attributed to the ownership of ideas and plans that
participation allows for. Such perceptions of ownership, on the part of participants, helps
motivate them to higher levels and contributes to their commitment to decisions. Thus,
participating individuals and teams are not merely complying with requests and
commands from above, but strongly committed to the ideas and action plans. Perhaps,
equally important, is the sharing of crucial knowledge related to problems, which the
open sharing of information in a participative culture fosters.
Wagner (1994) reviewed the impact of participation on performance and satisfaction
and suggested that participation can have a statistically significant effect, however
small, on performance and satisfaction. He identified a number of factors that
account for the small effect size, which raises concerns of practical significance.
These include, but are not limited to, the varying definitions and conceptualizations
of participation, negative consequences of obtrusive methods used in such research,
and varying measures of performance and satisfaction used in different studies. More
importantly, Wagner (1994) notes that participation could have powerful effects on per-
formance and satisfaction under certain favourable conditions. Moreover, he also argues
that participation can have strong general effects on other kinds of outcomes such as
quality or effectiveness of decisions, which is consistent with the leadership literature
on participatory decision making (Vroom & Yetton, 1979). Thus, we have Propositions
3 and 4.

Proposition 3
The degree to which leaders value participation and teamwork, and information sharing
will be directly related to their communication behaviours about the importance of team-
work and thereby foster an organizational culture of openness and information sharing
across levels.

Proposition 4
Higher levels of participation effectiveness within the unit will lead to higher levels of unit
performance.
A number of US organizations have achieved success with teamwork. Some
evidence (e.g. Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995; Jayaram et al., 1999; Fishman, 1999;
Wageman, 2001) suggests that organizations that use self-managing teams are better
able to meet strategic product development or manufacturing/service goals (quality
related) than other organizations. Moreover, the use of self-managing teams, is likely
to enhance a number of sources of intrinsic motivation (Hackman & Oldham, 1976)
such as variety, task identity, significance, and autonomy and thus improve quality
performance (Cheser, 1998). Thus, the very use of self-managing teams is likely to
contribute to quality management.

Proposition 5
The degree to which leaders use self-managing teams as part of the overall organization
design will be positively related to the organization’s quality performance.
52 C. Lakshman

Antecedent Factors for the Success of Teams

Although the very use of teams is likely to enhance an organization’s quality perform-
ance, a review of the available theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that some
antecedent factors need to be in place for teams to be effective. Cohen & Bailey
(1997) conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on the effectiveness of
teams and developed a model that identifies the factors leading to effectiveness of
teams, in a manner different from the traditional inputs-processes-outcomes model
that had been prevalent in that literature. Their model suggests a number of factors
such as task design factors, group psychosocial traits such as norms and shared
mental models, the support of the organization in the form of resources, rewards,
and supervision, in addition to group processes and other factors such as environmental
factors, all of which can have an impact on the effectiveness of teams. In their review,
Cohen & Bailey (1997) point to studies that have specifically examined the relationship
between supervisory behaviours and performance and satisfaction outcomes of teams.
Some of this research (e.g. Korsgaard et al., 1995) suggests that high consideration
behaviour is positively related to perceptions of fairness, commitment, trust, and
attachment of the team members. In addition, supervisory behaviour, moods, and
expectations were seen to have impacts on performance and customer service beha-
viour. More recently Wageman (2001) presented evidence on the comparative efficacy
of team design behaviours versus coaching behaviours of leaders and suggested that,
contrary to popular belief, leader behaviours focusing on team design are more effec-
tive in leading self-managed teams to success, with poorly designed teams not being
able to take advantage of coaching behaviours.
More specific evidence (Jayaram et al., 1999; Fishman, 1999) suggests that the pre-
sence of top management commitment, clear communication of goals, employee train-
ing, careful selection of team members, and delegation of decision making authority
are all important for teams to be effective in achieving quality related and other strategic
goals of the organization. All of these and variables such as clear direction, appropriate
task interdependence, and core strategy norms presented by Wageman (2001) are
included within design factors in the model presented by Cohen & Bailey (1997).
Following this literature, this article focuses on design factors that have an impact on
team effectiveness through team processes. For example, Fishman (1999), in reporting
the experience of the use of teams at GE’s Durham based jet engine manufacturing
plant, suggests that organizing the entire plant around teams, supported with a number
of initiatives such as careful hiring of people to work in teams, providing a radical
degree of autonomy in decision making to each of the teams and its members, providing
training in both technical and team skills, enhancing communication between shifts with
crafty scheduling, and using a variety of visual management techniques, are all critical
design factors that contribute to the success of teams at the plant. Therefore, we have
Propositions 6– 8.

Proposition 6
Leaders’ team design and coaching behaviours will be positively related to the perform-
ance of the teams, with coaching behaviours being more effective in relating to
performance at higher levels of team design behaviours.
 A Theory of Leadership for Quality 53

Proposition 7
The degree to which leaders support teams by providing authority to make critical
decisions will be positively related to unit performance.

Proposition 8
The degree to which leaders enhance communication among team members and between
teams will be positively related to unit performance

Leader Structuring Behaviours

In addition to the distinction made between the generic team design behaviours and the
specific behaviours of delegation of authority and enhancing communication within and
between teams, the quality management literature has also pointed to generic structuring
of teams or units of organizations and their impact on effectiveness of TQM implementation
and new product development (Douglas & Judge, 2001; Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995). This
literature suggests that teams or units of organizations that are high on both ‘control’ and
‘exploration’ structures are likely to be more effective in achieving quality performance
(Douglas & Judge, 2001). This literature further suggests that leaders cannot design their
teams monodimensionally either along mechanistic or organic lines, especially in a TQM
environment. Leaders need to ensure that the teams are designed in such a way that the struc-
ture has a stabilizing (control) and creative (exploration) impact on teams. Further, leaders
also need to structure the relationships across teams in this manner gaining both the benefits
of stability and creativity, to enhance both the standardizing of functions required by TQM
and the learning achieved from the creative aspects of the structure. Such structuring beha-
viours on the part of leaders are likely to result in improved teamwork and participation.

Proposition 9
Leader structuring behaviours that enhance both ‘control’ and ‘exploration’ aspects of
team structures will result in enhanced teamwork and participation.
These leader structuring behaviours are likely to be related to certain leader traits. The
Big-five trait2 of ‘conscientiousness’ (Barrick & Mount, 1991), a characteristic of individ-
uals who like order, dependability, and the value of established procedures to obtain
dependability is more likely to lead them to engage in ‘control’ structuring behaviours,
whereas those with the trait of ‘intellectance’ are characterized by imagination, curiosity,
and the preference to experiment with new ideas are more likely to engage in ‘exploration’
structuring behaviours. Those possessing both traits are likely to function better as leaders
in a total quality environment.

Proposition 10
Leaders high on conscientiousness are more controlling in their structuring behaviour
whereas leaders high on intellectance are more exploring in their structuring behaviour.
Leaders high on both of these traits are more effective by providing both types of
structuring behaviours.
54 C. Lakshman

Continuous Improvement
The importance of continuous improvement of processes and outcomes on a number of per-
formance parameters to the competitive success of organizations has been highlighted by
the examples of Japanese companies (see Imai, 1986). This principle of total quality man-
agement suggests that the long-term health of an organization depends on treating quality
improvement as a never-ending quest. Opportunities to develop better methods for carrying
out work always exist, and a commitment to continuous improvement ensures that people
will never stop learning about the work they do (Juran, 1969, Deming, 1986, Ishikawa,
1985). Dean & Bowen (1994) identified a number of techniques that are used in organiz-
ations implementing total quality initiatives, including flowcharts, pareto analyses, statisti-
cal process control, and fishbone diagrams. From a leadership point of view, it can be
argued that a culture of quality is more easily instituted when the leaders themselves
hold values of continuous improvement dear to their heart. More importantly, when
these values are translated into actual behaviours that reinforce and emphasize the import-
ance of continuous improvements on both processes and outcomes, the results are likely to
be much more positive. Along with values, leaders high on intellectance are more likely to
experiment with new ideas and be open to creative means of obtaining improvement. The
effectiveness of quality leaders will vary as a direct function of the degree to which they
effectively communicate the importance of continuous improvement of both processes
and outcomes to the members of their unit. Accordingly, we have Proposition 11.

Proposition 11
The degree to which leaders communicate the importance of continuous improvement of
work processes and outcomes will be positively related to their effectiveness and to the
unit’s performance.
Such communication of the importance of continuous improvement of work processes
and outcomes acts as an antecedent variable to the propositions developed next. In
addition to the commitment and subsequent communication of the emphasis on continuous
improvement of processes and outcomes, other leader behaviours could provide means
through which such improvement can be attained. There is some evidence to indicate
that leaders who constantly experiment and try new things in a learning effort (see
Dasgupta et al., 2002, Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995; Erikson, 1969; Gandhi, 1927) are more
effective in achieving quality and continuous improvement objectives. For instance,
Eisenhardt & Tabrizi (1995) argued that multiple design iterations and frequent testing
resulted in shorter development times and thus more effective continuous improvement.
These iterations and testing resulted in the building of an understanding of the product,
and frequent design variations provided developers with the intuitive feel for the
sensitivity of the parameters and the robustness of the designs. This is consistent with
the views of Taguchi (1986) on statistical experimentation in the context of quality
engineering.
This literature and the views of Taguchi (1986) with respect to statistical experimen-
tation and his orthogonal design of experiments provides a broad idea of what firms
and leaders within firms can do to systematically achieve continuous improvement.
Leadership researchers can broaden the experimental approach to product parameter
design through a system of trials advocated by Taguchi and apply it to develop a set of
 A Theory of Leadership for Quality 55

propositions that focus on the broad range of continuous improvement activities in organ-
izations. Taguchi’s approach suggests that once the strategic goals of an organizational
unit have been decided upon, the effectiveness of leaders is likely to be enhanced by a sys-
tematic approach to trying and testing the effect on overall unit performance according to
the average effect of the change in a number of variables pertaining to the unit (see
Dasgupta et al., 2002 for a case example). In other words, by trying design variations,
developers or manufacturing employees can gain an intuitive feel for the sensitivity of
the parameters and the robustness of the design (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995). Leader
effectiveness is likely to be enhanced by using the orthogonal design of trials designed
to achieve continuous improvement on a number of performance dimensions. Thus, it
can be argued that leader effectiveness and unit performance are enhanced to the extent
to that leaders experiment with new ideas for improving quality performance. Accord-
ingly, we have Propositions 12 and 13.

Proposition 12
Leaders who value continuous improvement and are high on intellectance engage in more
systematic experimentation behaviours for continuous improvement.

Proposition 13
The extent to which leaders design and conduct systematic experiments on the impact of
key variables on quality performance is positively related to the overall performance of the
unit.
Such openness to experimentation on the part of leaders and their use of systematic
experiments is likely to have a dual impact on their organizations and the people in
them, both by directly impacting them and indirectly through the impact such values
and behaviour can have on the culture of the organization (e.g. Waldman et al., 1998).
Another concept central to the Taguchi methods is the signal-to-noise ratio, which
measures the sensitivity of an effect to noise factors. The rationale for designing exper-
iments and a systematic set of trials is for the purpose of maximizing the signal-
to-noise ratio. Alternatively, when faced with a number of variables that could potentially
impact performance and continuous improvement, leaders will be more likely to identify
the key variables (signal) and distinguish these from the other not-so-important variables
(noise). There is a strong basis in the leadership literature for a concept related to signal-
to-noise ratio, namely cause-effect beliefs (e.g. Burns, 1978; Lord & Maher, 1991;
Thompson, 1967). These theorists suggest that cause-effect beliefs or implicit theories
of leaders such as top executives of organizations are likely to be very important for
their effectiveness. In the context of signal-to-noise ratio, leaders with fairly complete
cause-effect beliefs (Thompson, 1967), as opposed to incomplete cause-effect beliefs,
are likely to have higher ability in separating the signal variables from the noise variables.
Thus, leader effectiveness is likely to be enhanced to the extent that they design exper-
imental trials to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio of the trials. Further, leader effective-
ness is likely to be enhanced to the extent that they are better able to identify the signal
variables and distinguish them from the noise variables. Accordingly, from the perspective
of continuous improvement of processes, the following propositions can be made.
56 C. Lakshman

Propositions 14
Leader systematic experimentation behaviours to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio of
outcome variables are positively related to leader effectiveness and unit performance.

Proposition 15
The extent to which leaders are better able to separate signal variables from the noise
variables, in terms of their effects on key performance dimensions, is positively related
to leader effectiveness and unit performance.

Research Implications
The theoretical framework developed here opens the door for further research of leader-
ship behaviours by examining both the specific behaviours and generic behavioural
dimensions associated with total quality management philosophy, many of which have
not been addressed in the traditional behavioural paradigm of leadership research. The
major independent variables in this theoretical framework are the traits, values, and beha-
viours of leaders throughout the organization. The extent to which leaders value focusing
on customers (alternatively their level of customer orientation), the extent to which they
value continuous improvement of processes and outcomes, and the extent to which they
value systematic experimentation to separate ‘signal’ variables from ‘noise’ variables
are all related to the values held by leaders in organizations that pertain to the effective
management of quality. Measures are available for many of the dispositional variables
in the framework developed here. Traits such as intellectance and conscientiousness are
easily measurable with available scales. Values such as customer focus can be adapted
from similar measures (e.g. customer orientation subconstruct of market orientation) in
the marketing literature (Slater & Narver, 1994), which measure executive orientation
towards customers (see also Choi & Behling, 1997). Measures may need to be developed
for the other values in the theoretical framework developed here. Considerable thought has
to be given to the appropriate levels of measurement (Klein et al., 1994) for these and other
variables in the framework, maintaining consistency within the context of the individual
study being conducted.
Leader behaviours in terms of communicating the importance of both internal and exter-
nal customers, communicating the importance of continuous improvement of processes
and outcomes, and emphasizing the importance of organization wide participation and
teamwork are all leader behavioural variables associated with the management of
quality in organizations. In addition, other leader behaviours such as the implementation
and facilitation of participation systems, team design and coaching behaviours, structuring
behaviours, and systematic experimentation behaviours, are variables underlying the total
quality management philosophy. Measures need to be developed for many of these beha-
vioural constructs, with some notable exceptions such as team design and coaching
behaviours (Wageman, 2001) and structuring behaviours (Douglas & Judge, 2001), where
modified versions of existing measures could be used. The major dependent variables in
the theory are leader effectiveness, and unit performance. All of these variables can be
operationalized and tested through field survey methods by carefully designing a survey
questionnaire and getting responses from multiple respondents in organizations. Both
 A Theory of Leadership for Quality 57

perceptual and objective measures of many of the variables can be obtained from organ-
izations in the process of testing the relationships proposed here. Individual units and their
leaders or entire organizations consisting of many subunits headed by multiple people or
both can be included depending upon a number of factors such as research context, avail-
ability of resources, and access to organizations that are willing to participate in such a
study. Alternatively, some of the propositions can also be tested using experimental
designs using carefully designed scenarios based on case material that manipulates the
independent variables and examines differences in perceptions of leader effectiveness.
As with any theory testing, multiple studies using a variety of methodologies are likely
to be beneficial in validating the theoretical framework proposed here.

Conclusion
This article has argued that the role of managing quality in organizations has not been
specifically addressed in the leadership literature despite its importance to organizations,
as evidenced by the growing importance of TQM (Hendricks & Singhal, 1997) and the
acknowledgement of the validity of TQM frameworks as legitimate and valid interven-
tions in organizations (Hackman & Wageman, 1995) for enhancing organizational effec-
tiveness. Specifically, despite the acknowledgement of the founders of the TQM
movement of the importance of leadership to the total quality management initiative, lea-
dership theories have not incorporated quality frameworks in studying leadership. This has
been an attempt to identify the contributions that the TQM philosophy and the associated
literature make to the leadership literature. Based on such contributions, the core prin-
ciples of the TQM philosophy, and extensions of the leadership literature, this article
has developed broad theoretical propositions about leadership that incorporate the basic
elements of the TQM movement.
This theory explicitly builds on the core principles of total quality management and
develops a framework for the development of a theory of leadership for quality. Each
of the principles of total quality management have been addressed in sequence and a
number of propositions have been framed around each of these core principles. This
article offers the explicit realization of the role of leaders as quality managers. The
notion of customers is broadened to include a number of interest groups within the organ-
ization that leaders need to focus on and thereby achieve performance. The implications
for future research have also been explored.
This article makes contributions to both the leadership and TQM literatures. The
contribution to the leadership literature is in explicitly identifying the value of the TQM
philosophy and its potential contribution to the area of leadership and in explicitly building
propositions that incorporate quality elements into the theory developed. The contribution
to the TQM literature is in terms of developing a framework that specifically incorporates
the role of leaders in the TQM initiative and therefore identifying potential leader actions
that can facilitate the implementation of TQM in organizations, which has generally been
considered in many case studies as challenging to say the least. In addition to the theor-
etical contributions that can be derived from such a perspective, a number of managerial
implications can also be drawn from this approach. The managerial implications arise
from the identification of the necessity to communicate their core values related to custo-
mer focus, teamwork, and continuous improvement to all organizational members.
Further, the identification of ideas such as the need to maximize the signal-to-noise
58 C. Lakshman

ratio are crucial for managers trying to implement quality management in their organiz-
ations. The traits of conscientiousness and intellectance may become important for selec-
tion purposes, in total quality contexts, if the propositions are found to be true. These traits
may then hold the basis for the structuring and systematic experimentation behaviours
called for in this theory.
Despite the contributions of the theoretical approach developed here, there are some
limitations. The theoretical framework focuses on traits, values, and behaviours, to the
exclusion of other aspects of leadership that have been examined in one of the many
approaches to the study of leadership (House & Aditya, 1997; Yukl, 2002) such as
aspects of the situation, and the role of leader use of power and influence. However, the
theoretical framework does conceptualize some of the factors hitherto considered as situa-
tional variables, i.e. ‘control’ and ‘exploration’ structuring (Douglas & Judge, 2001), as
key leadership behaviours, because someone within the organization and its several
units has to perform the structuring function. Thus, this situational aspect (Douglas &
Judge, 2001) has been modified as per leadership research requirements, which, by neces-
sity, is leader-centred (Shamir, 1999). Further, the very framework developed here focuses
on leader values and behaviours vis-à-vis organizational processes, as the underlying prin-
ciples of TQM, on which it is based, thereby embedding the situational context. Moreover,
the theory developed here also includes an analysis of leadership at multiple levels, includ-
ing leadership of teams. Although some in the literature have focused on visionary and
transformational leadership (Anderson et al., 1994; Waldman, 1993), this theoretical
framework focuses on the behaviours and values suggested by the underlying TQM prin-
ciples, some of which have an overlap with the transformational approaches discussed in
the literature, especially with respect to the communication of values consistent with a
TQM culture. Beyer (1999) has suggested that leadership theories need to include both
innovative and maintenance leadership, whereas the literature tends to be dominated by
the former with an under-emphasis of the latter. More importantly, the TQM principles
suggest a number of other leadership behaviours that are crucial in a quality context,
and have not been addressed in prior work. Thus, the leadership behaviours and values
suggested by the underlying TQM principles, as identified here, provide an important
complement to other leadership approaches.

Notes
1. A previous version of this article was presented at the 2001 Academy of Management Meeting in
Washington DC.
2. Three of the Big-five traits are not included here because of a lack of conceptual relationship to either the
structuring behaviours or systematic experimentation behaviours.

References
Anderson, J.C. et al. (1994) A theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method,
Academy of Management Review, 19, pp. 472–509.
Bacharach, S.B. (1989) Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation, Academy of Management Review,
14, pp. 496–515.
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991) The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis,
Personnel Psychology, 44, pp. 1–26.
Bennis, W.G. (1989) On Becoming a Leader (Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley).
 A Theory of Leadership for Quality 59

Beyer, J.M. (1999) Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations, Leadership Quarterly, 10(2),
pp. 307 –330.
Burns, M.J. (1978) Leadership (New York: Harper Colophon).
Cheser, R.N. (1998) The effect of Japanese Kaizen on employee motivation in U.S. Manufacturing, The Inter-
national Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6(3), pp. 197 –217.
Choi, T.Y. & Behling, O.C. (1997) Top managers and TQM success: one more look after all these years, Academy
of Management Executive, 11(1), pp. 37–47.
Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1987) Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational
settings, Academy of Management Review, 12, pp. 637–647.
Crosby, P.B. (1979) Quality is Free. The Art of Making Quality Certain (New York: New American Library).
Crosby, P.B. (1996) The leadership and quality nexus, Journal for Quality and Participation, June.
Dasgupta, T. et al. (2002) Using Taguchi methods to improve a control scheme by adjustment of changeable set-
tings: a case study, Total Quality Management, 13(6), pp. 863–876.
Dean, J.W. Jr. & Bowen, D.E. (1994) Management theory and total quality: improving research and practice
through theory development, Academy of Management Review, 19(3), pp. 392– 418.
Deming, E. (1986) Out of Crisis (Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study).
Douglas, T.J. & Judge, W.Q. (2001) Total quality management implementation and competitive advantage: the
role of structural control and exploration, Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), pp. 158–169.
Easton, G. & Jarrell, S. (1998) The effects of total quality management on corporate performance: an empirical
investigation, Journal of Business, 71, pp. 253–307.
Eisenhardt, K. & Tabrizi, B. (1995) Accelerating adaptive processes: product innovation in the global computer
industry, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp. 84–110.
England, G.W. & Lee, R. (1974) The relationship between managerial values and managerial success in the
United States, Japan, India, and Australia, Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, pp. 411– 419.
Erikson, E. (1969) Gandhi’s Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence (New York: W.W. Norton & Co).
Feigenbaum, A.V. (1983) Total Quality Control (New York: McGraw-Hill).
Fishman, C. (1999) Engines of democracy, Fastcompany, October.
Gandhi, M.K. (1927) The Story of my Experiments with Truth, translated from the original in Gujarati by
Mahadev Desai (Ahmedabad: Navjivan).
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham (1976) Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory, Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 16, pp. 250– 279.
Hackman, J.R. & Wageman, R. (1995) Total quality management: empirical, conceptual, and practical issues,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp. 309–342.
Hendricks, K.B. & Singhal, V.R. (1997) Does implementing an effective TQM program actually improve operating
performance? Evidence from firms that have won quality awards, Management Science, 43(9), pp. 1258–1274.
House, R.J. & Aditya, R.N. (1997) The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis?, Journal of Management,
23(3), pp. 409 –473.
Hughes, R.L. et al. (2002) Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience, 4th edn (McGraw-Hill Irwin).
Hunt, J.G. et al. (1982) Leadership: Beyond Establishment Views (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Press).
Ishikawa, K. (1985) What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Jayaram, J. et al. (1999) The impact of human resource management practices on manufacturing performance,
Journal of Operations Management, 18, pp. 1–20.
Juran, J. (1969) Managerial Breakthrough: A New Concept of the Manager’s Job (New York: McGraw Hill).
Juran, J. (1994) The quality trilogy: a universal approach for managing for quality, in: H. Costin (Ed.) Total
Quality Management (New York: Dryden).
Juran, J. (1995) How top executives improve performance, Executive Excellence, May.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. & Miller, D. (1986) Personality, culture, and organization. Academy of Management
Review, 11(2), pp. 266–279.
Klein, K.J. et al. (1994) Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis, Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 19, pp. 195–229.
Kotter, J.P. (1990) What Leaders Really Do, A Harvard Business Review Book (HBS Press).
Kotter, J.P. & Heskett, J.L. (1992) Corporate Culture and Performance (New York: Free Press).
Lord, R.G. & Maher, K.J. (1991) Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance
(Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman).
Moore, J.N. (1996) Supervisors learn to listen to employees, Supervision, April.
60 C. Lakshman

Peters, T. (1996) Brave leadership, Executive Excellence, January.

Powell, T.C. (1995) Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study, Strategic
Management Journal, 16(1), pp. 15 –37.
Rago, W.V. (1996) Struggles in transformation: a study in TQM, leadership, and organizational culture in a
government agency, Public Administration Review, 56(3), pp. 227–234.
Repenning, N.P. & Sterman, J.D. (2002) Capability traps and self-confirming attribution errors in the dynamics of
process improvement, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, pp. 265– 295.
Rousseau, D. (1985) Issues of level in organizational research: multilevel and cross-level perspectives, Research
in Organizational Behavior, 7, pp. 1 –37.
Savoilanen, T. (2000) Leadership strategies for gaining business excellence through total quality management: a
Finnish case study, Total Quality Management, 11(2), pp. 211–226.
Shamir, B. (1999) Taming charisma for better understanding and greater usefulness: a response to Beyer, Leader-
ship Quarterly, 10(4), pp. 555–562.
Slater, S.F. & Narver, J.C. (1994) Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance
relationship?, Journal of Marketing, 58, pp. 46 –55.
Spencer, B.A. (1994) Models of organization and total quality management: a comparison and critical evaluation,
Academy of Management Review, 19(3), pp. 446–471.
Sutton, R.I. & Staw, B.M. (1995) What theory is not, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp. 371–384.
Taguchi, G. (1986) Introduction to quality engineering (White Plains, NY: Asian Productivity Organization,
Unipub/Kraus International Publications).
Taylor, W.C. (1995) At Verifone it’s a dog’s life (And they love it!), Fastcompany, November.
Thompson, J.D. (1967) Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw Hill).
Tichy, N.M. & Devanna, M. A. (1980) The Transformational Leader (New York: Wiley).
Vroom, V.H. & Yetton, P. (1973) Leadership and Decision-making (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh
Press).
Wageman, R. (2001) How leaders foster self–managing team effectiveness: design choices versus hands on
coaching, Organization Science, 12(5), pp. 559–577.
Waldman, D.A. (1993) A theoretical consideration of leadership and total quality management, Leadership
Quarterly, 4(1), pp. 65–79.
Waldman D.A. et al. (1998) A qualitative analysis of leadership and quality improvement, Leadership Quarterly,
9(2), pp. 177 –201.
Waldman, D.A. & Yammarino, F.J. (1999) CEO charismatic leadership: levels-of-management and levels-of-
analysis effects, Academy of Management Review, 24(2), pp. 266–285.
Weick, K.E. (1995) What theorizing is not, theorizing is, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp. 385 –390.
Whetten, D.A. (1989) What constitutes a theoretical contribution?, Academy of Management Review, 14, pp.
490– 495.
Youngdahl, W.E. et al. (1998) Leading the total quality transformation at Goodyear –Oxo, Mexico, Journal of
Management Inquiry, 7(1), pp. 59–65.
Yukl, G. (2002) Leadership in organizations, 5th edn (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Zaleznik, A. (1977) Managers and leaders: are they different?, Harvard Business Review, May–June 1977.