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 identied 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 specic 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 todays environment, as evidenced by the popularity of the TQM movement and the success it has brought to a number of organizations (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 eld 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=01004120 # 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 benecial 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 implementation 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 & Wagemans (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 founders 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 responsibility and viewing TQM principles as being principles of leadership. The purpose of this article is to build on the leadership and quality management literatures 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 building (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 perspective 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 Waldmans (1993) by directly identifying and articulating the values, behaviours, and policies associated with total quality management and its associated philosophy to the examination of leadership. Demings (1986) argument that his views are in fact statements of good principles of leadership suggests that the behaviours 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 identication 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 identied by both the founders of the quality movement and by management researchers. The three core principles of total quality management, namely, customer focus, teamwork & 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 external 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 rst 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 briey 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 management 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 specically 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

denitions 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 conclude 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 denition draws on the trait, behavioural, contingency, and other macro approaches to the study of leadership. Whereas Kotter (1990) separates the concepts of leadership and management, the perspective taken here is that leaders are rst and foremost managers and thus have the responsibilities of both management and of leadership. The similarity with Kotters view is that not all people in positions of leadership actually provide leadership. More specically, 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 organizational processes and examining directly the specic 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 processes 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 specic leader behaviours, such as the total quality oriented behaviours, as opposed to the generic leader behaviour dimensions identied by the behavioural approach to the study of leadership (House & Aditya, 1997). This study answers both of these calls. The TQM literature makes three specic 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 widespread in the organization than is conceptualized in the leadership literature. Second,

A Theory of Leadership for Quality

45

the TQM philosophys concern for customer focus and continuous improvement and its stress on recognition of these elements by the organizations 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 organization-wide quality management. The Vroom & Yetton (1973) theory of leader participation, 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 specic 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 specically 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-ve 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 Yukls (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 organizations. From this perspective, the leadership literature lacks focus on leadership at all levels in the organization. Organizational behaviour theorists have generally conned 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 management 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 produced, the quality improvement process must begin with managements 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 literatures attention to these specic 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 dening, communicating, and motivating continuous improvement (Anderson et al., 1994). A facet of TQM that views organizations as interlinked processes (Dean & Bowen, 1994), suggests that those processes 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 identied in the leadership literature, that need to be articulated. This article builds on and extends this prior work by identifying the core principles identied by both these researchers and the founders of the quality movement and then generating propositions around those leadership behaviours. Waldmans (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 developing 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 Waldmans work, by arguing for a stronger impact of leadership on organizational culture that then subsequently impacts values, attitudes, and behaviours of individuals in organizations attempting to manage for quality. By focusing directly on the total quality oriented behaviours and policies and identifying appropriate leadership behaviours, 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, encouraging change, and intellectual stimulation, this article articulates more specic 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 interrelationship between organizational culture and leadership (Waldman et al., 1998). The general consensus of the authors of these case studies is that organizations that successfully 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 management 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 signicant 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 inuence on leader behaviours. Specically, 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 identied 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 identies leader values as the driving force that inuences both leader behaviours and eventual outcomes. The view that rmly 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. Participation 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 outcomes, 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 specic leader behaviours, as opposed to the traditional generic behavioural dimensions, are discussed as components of the theoretical framework developed 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 participation. 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 identied 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 identied above are leader effectiveness, quality, and unit performance. Leader effectiveness, consistent with the literature, is dened 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 identied 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 denes 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 benecial to view different levels in the management hierarchy as internal suppliers and customers to other corresponding levels. If internal customers are dened 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 customers requirements serves as a tool to foster cross-functional and cross-hierarchical cooperation (Ishikawa, 1985) in achieving overall organizational objectives. Consequently, 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 individual 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 ` -vis highlights the value of customer focus and adds the crucial leader behaviours vis-a 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 leaders role consists of highlighting the importance of the units 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 rst and foremost according to principles 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 customers to the unit members will be positively related to the units 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 units 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 organizations 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 production 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 Kotters (1990) suggestion that the institutionalizing a culture of leadership is the ultimate act of leadership. The TQM literature specically 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 TQMoriented cultures have values and norms conducive to learning, information sharing, and a holistic approach to problem solving. More specically, 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. Ragos (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. Participation 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 organizations (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 organizational 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 satisfaction 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 signicant effect, however small, on performance and satisfaction. He identied a number of factors that account for the small effect size, which raises concerns of practical signicance. These include, but are not limited to, the varying denitions 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 performance 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 teamwork 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, signicance, 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 organizations quality performance.

52

C. Lakshman

Antecedent Factors for the Success of Teams Although the very use of teams is likely to enhance an organizations quality performance, 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 identies 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 specically 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 behaviour. More recently Wageman (2001) presented evidence on the comparative efcacy of team design behaviours versus coaching behaviours of leaders and suggested that, contrary to popular belief, leader behaviours focusing on team design are more effective in leading self-managed teams to success, with poorly designed teams not being able to take advantage of coaching behaviours. More specic evidence (Jayaram et al., 1999; Fishman, 1999) suggests that the presence of top management commitment, clear communication of goals, employee training, 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 GEs 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 performance 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 Proposition 7

53

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 specic 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 structure 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 benets 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 behaviours 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-ve trait2 of conscientiousness (Barrick & Mount, 1991), a characteristic of individuals 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 performance parameters to the competitive success of organizations has been highlighted by the examples of Japanese companies (see Imai, 1986). This principle of total quality management 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) identied a number of techniques that are used in organizations implementing total quality initiatives, including owcharts, pareto analyses, statistical process control, and shbone 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 importance 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 units 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 experimentation and his orthogonal design of experiments provides a broad idea of what rms and leaders within rms 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 organizations. Taguchis 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 systematic 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. Accordingly, 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 experiments and a systematic set of trials is for the purpose of maximizing the signalto-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 signalto-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 experimental trials to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio of the trials. Further, leader effectiveness 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 leadership behaviours by examining both the specic 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 behaviours 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 external 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 behavioural constructs, with some notable exceptions such as team design and coaching behaviours (Wageman, 2001) and structuring behaviours (Douglas & Judge, 2001), where modied 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 eld 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 organizations 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, availability 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 benecial in validating the theoretical framework proposed here. Conclusion This article has argued that the role of managing quality in organizations has not been specically 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 interventions in organizations (Hackman & Wageman, 1995) for enhancing organizational effectiveness. Specically, despite the acknowledgement of the founders of the TQM movement of the importance of leadership to the total quality management initiative, leadership 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 principles 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 organization 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 specically 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 theoretical 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 identication of the necessity to communicate their core values related to customer focus, teamwork, and continuous improvement to all organizational members. Further, the identication 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 organizations. The traits of conscientiousness and intellectance may become important for selection 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 inuence. However, the theoretical framework does conceptualize some of the factors hitherto considered as situational 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 modied as per leadership research requirements, which, by necessity, is leader-centred (Shamir, 1999). Further, the very framework developed here focuses ` -vis organizational processes, as the underlying prinon leader values and behaviours vis-a 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, including 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 principles, 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 identied 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-ve 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. 472509. Bacharach, S.B. (1989) Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation, Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 496515. Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991) The big ve personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology, 44, pp. 126. Bennis, W.G. (1989) On Becoming a Leader (Reading, MA: AddisonWesley).

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 International 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. 3747. Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1987) Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings, Academy of Management Review, 12, pp. 637647. 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 settings: a case study, Total Quality Management, 13(6), pp. 863876. 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. 158169. Easton, G. & Jarrell, S. (1998) The effects of total quality management on corporate performance: an empirical investigation, Journal of Business, 71, pp. 253307. Eisenhardt, K. & Tabrizi, B. (1995) Accelerating adaptive processes: product innovation in the global computer industry, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp. 84110. 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) Gandhis 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. 309342. Hendricks, K.B. & Singhal, V.R. (1997) Does implementing an effective TQM program actually improve operating performance? Evidence from rms that have won quality awards, Management Science, 43(9), pp. 12581274. House, R.J. & Aditya, R.N. (1997) The social scientic 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. 120. Juran, J. (1969) Managerial Breakthrough: A New Concept of the Managers 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. 266279. Klein, K.J. et al. (1994) Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis, Academy of Management Review, 19, pp. 195229. 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. 227234. Repenning, N.P. & Sterman, J.D. (2002) Capability traps and self-conrming 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. 211226. Shamir, B. (1999) Taming charisma for better understanding and greater usefulness: a response to Beyer, Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), pp. 555562. 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. 446471. Sutton, R.I. & Staw, B.M. (1995) What theory is not, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp. 371384. Taguchi, G. (1986) Introduction to quality engineering (White Plains, NY: Asian Productivity Organization, Unipub/Kraus International Publications). Taylor, W.C. (1995) At Verifone its a dogs 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 selfmanaging team effectiveness: design choices versus hands on coaching, Organization Science, 12(5), pp. 559577. Waldman, D.A. (1993) A theoretical consideration of leadership and total quality management, Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), pp. 6579. 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-ofanalysis effects, Academy of Management Review, 24(2), pp. 266285. 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. 5965. 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, MayJune 1977.