AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to millions of articles from top publications available through your library.
In the past two years, there has been considerable interest in Total Quality Management (TQM). At the level of local government, interest is shown by the increasing number of TQM initiatives in such services as garbage collection, street maintenance, welfare services, police protection, emergency services, and other areas (Sensenbrenner, 1991; Galloway, 1992; Walters, 1992; Pfister, 1993; Lusk, Tribus, and Schwinn, 1989; Penzer, 1991; Kline, 1992; International City and Country Management Association, 1993). applications vary from administrative cost savings to strategic reorientations of agency objectives to meet the needs of citizens more effectively. In general, the objectives of these applications are to increase customer orientation, timeliness, and service performance, while reducing costs. Also, many of these applications apply TQM concepts loosely; that is, they do not necessarily follow strict or orthodox TQM concepts.
Notwithstanding considerable interest for TQM in municipal government, informed observers have highlighted many problems with the implementation of TQM. For example, Kravchuk and Leighton (1993), as well as Davis and Hyde (1992), see traditional administrative functions such as budgeting and human resources as control-oriented impediments to TQM. Cohen and Brand (1993) focus on the need for long-term commitment, which is compromised by the ever-changing political contexts of public management, as well as turnover by top management. Swiss (1992) questions the suitability of production-oriented private sector experiences for government. Others have challenged TQM on normative grounds. Linden (1992), believes that by focusing on customers, governments may overlook the legitimate interest of citizens. Frederickson (1994) argues that interest in TQM is misplaced, and that more progress is needed on difficult policy issues. These problems cause many to see TQM as just one more in a series of short-lived management fads (Bleakley, 1993; Zemke, 1993).
Despite these concerns, it is obvious to many practitioners that (at least for now) TQM is very much alive in government (e.g., Rago, 1993). However, we known very little about the extent of TQM implementation in local government, the reasons that cities implement TQM, the areas in which TQM is often used, and so forth. This is because many existing accounts are largely based on anecdotal evidence and have an advocacy orientation. By contrast, we aim to provide in this article a systematic and balanced assessment of TQM in municipal government. Through a national survey of U.S. cities (with populations over 25,000), we provide evidence of (1) the level of municipal implementation, (2) the forces which drive cities to implement TQM, (3) differences in TQM implementation by cities of different, regions, and form of government, (4) strategies used to implement TQM, and (5) a subjective assessment by chief administrative officers of the impact of TQM to date. We also examine the relationships among these aspects such as, for example, between different strategies and the level of implementation.
The Level of Commitment
TQM is an encompassing management approach whose principal tenets are to satisfy (internal and external) customer needs through strategies of employee empowerment and performance measurement (e.g., Milakovich, 1991; Garrity, 1993; Barzelay, 1992; Keehley, 1992). Customer needs are addressed through the multi-faceted concept of quality,' which includes such elements as performance, conformance, accuracy, reliability, and timeliness (Federal Quality Institute, 1991; Rosen, 1993). In many instances, these elements are quantifiable and, hence, subject to evaluation, assessment, and continuous improvement. Employee empowerment is used because it allows employees to address customer problems in a timely and often tailored way (Berman, 1995).
A common problem with the implementation of productivity improvement innovations such as TQM is that many organizations implement them at a token level rather than fully committing themselves to success (Downs and Mohr, 1980; Miller, 1993). Token implementation, or paying lip service, occurs because organizations and individuals receive recognition and other benefits from being or appearing to be in line with current thinking, while avoiding the risks of actual innovation. Such behavior is reinforced by perceptions of meager rewards for success or often severe, punitive consequences of failure. Token implementation also occurs as the result of a flawed implementation plan, inadequate commitment and follow-through by those mandating the implementation of innovation, a lack of training in applying the innovation, incongruent organizational policies, and other factors (Radin and Coffee, 1993).
Given the reality of token implementation, it is important to be able to distinguish token from substantial implementation. Previous studies have used a range of "organizational investments" such as training, rewards and resources as measures of commitment to innovation (Perry, 1985). Many authors have argued that the implementation of TQM requires considerable commitment to training and appropriate rewards, and that without such commitment TQM implementation cannot succeed (Bowen and Greiner, 1991; Halachmi, 1993). Using organizational commitment as a multi variable concept, it might be said that a city, which provides intensive and on-going training at all employee levels, provides rewards for implementing TQM, uses TQM coordinators, forms quality councils, engages in planning activities such as information-gathering site visits, and applies TQM in many services, has a higher level of commitment to TQM than a city that fails to do these things.
In this study, we use four composite measures of organizational commitment to TQM: (1) the number of functions in which TQM is used; (2) the availability of training efforts in TQM for employees and senior managers; (3) the implementation of rewards that are designed to further the implementation of TQM (e.g., group rewards); and (4) the commitment of other organizational resources for TQM such as consultants, coordinators, councils, and budgets that aim to further TQM. The validity of these measures is not only supported by the implementation literature (Goggin et al, 1990; Hummel, 1987; Barzelay, 1993; Berry, 1990) but also by open-ended comments provided by survey respondents (see gray box for a discussion of survey procedures). Many responding municipal administrators viewed implementing TQM in a range of departments or city functions as a measure of commitment to TQM (measure no. 1). Respondents also mentioned the importance of training (measure no. 2). A typical comment was: TQM requires an incredible commitment toward training," and "we did not underestimate the amount of training required for managers and employees." Others commented that progress has been slow because of negotiations about new reward systems (measure no. 3). A city administrator in Michigan commented that "staff and union resistance to new measurement systems have stymied innovation in this area." Another city administrator stressed the need to develop "a more effective personnel evaluation system." Respondents also noted the need for resources (measure no. 4): "Due to financial constraints, we have not moved as quickly as possible." Resources are also used for hiring consultants: The use of a consultant keeps us on track: now we live TQM."
A quantitative measure of commitment is useful in order to distinguish token (or initial) commitment from substantial …