Indian culture and the culture for TQM: Acomparison

Madhu Ranjan Kumar, DBA student, Graduate School ofManagement, Southern Cross University,

madhu_ranjan@yahoo.com

Shankar Sankaran, Associate Professor, Graduate School ofManagement, Southern Cross University, Australia,

ssankara@scu.edu.au

Abstract

Purpose

This paper argues against the conventional wisdom in the

current TQM literature that hierarchy is not conducive for

TQM. It aims to identify the cultural dynamics which can aid

TQM implementation in a hierarchical country like India.

Methodology/Approach

1

It reflects on the existing literature on culture and TQM

and develops a mechanism which explains why hierarchy

hinders TQM implementation in Western culture and how it can

support TQM implementation in Indian culture.

Findings

In a people oriented culture like those of Japan and India,

nurturance is the juice which sustains hierarchy which

finally morphs into collectivism. In these social systems,

there need not be conflicting impact of hierarchy and

collectivism on TQM implementation if the nurturance aspect

of hierarchy is understood. Thus, in the Indian context,

hierarchy, operationalised through the guru-shishya (teacher-

student) relationship between the boss and the subordinate

can develop a learning orientation among the organizational

members and facilitate TQM implementation. Similarly, by

superimposing the element of ‘equity’ on the ‘personalised

relationship’ dimension of hierarchy, in a collectivistic

society like India, it is possible to elevate the aspect of

‘personalised relationship’ between superior and subordinate

2

to the status of ‘individualised consideration’ dimension of

transformational leadership provided it is bestowed only

upon the satisfactory completion of ‘task’ by the

subordinate.

Practical implications

This paper shows how the cultural aspect of TQM

implementation should be handled in a high power distance

country like India.

Originality/value of paper

The paper identifies the two Indian cultural aspects

which can facilitate TQM implementation in India

notwithstanding the hierarchical Indian values.

Key word: TQM, hierarchy, collectivism, nurturance, guru-shishya relationship, equity based personalised relationship.

Category – Viewpoint

Please address all correspondence to madhu_ranjan@yahoo.com

3

Indian culture and the culture for

TQM: A comparison

Introduction

A review of quality awards and critical success factors

for TQM has shown that culture influences the understanding

of TQM in a country and it also affects the

operationalisation of TQM in a country (Kumar 2006; Tan et

al. 2003). For example, Confucianism has been found to be

useful for efficient implementation of TQM in Southeast

Asian countries (Tan and Khoo 2002) and in China (Noronha

2002). Thus, Noronha (2002, p.221) concludes that ‘whether a

TQM program will sustain or fail will depend upon how TQM

itself fuses with the quality climate, which is in turn

influenced by the national culture setting’. However, there

has been lesser attention on how the principles of TQM can

fuse into existing cultures (Chin & Pun 2002, p.274; Noronha

2002). This necessitates that the culture for TQM be

4

understood and juxtaposed against a country’s culture.

Accordingly, this paper assesses how the Indian culture

compares with the cultural requirement of TQM and what

aspects of Indian culture need to be modulated so as to lead

to successful TQM implementation.

TQM and culture

Hofstede (1980) identified four factors on which

culture of different countries differ. The four factors are

collectivism-individualism, power distance, masculinity-

feminity and uncertainty avoidance. Kanungo and Mendonca

(1996) have provided a model to explain the internal work

culture of organizations in developing countries like India

based on these four dimensions and one additional dimension

of associative thinking-abstractive thinking. The model is

shown in Figure 1.

5

INTERNAL WORK CULTURE

Figure 1 Characteristics of internal work culture oforganizations in developing countries in thecontext of their socio-cultural environment

Source: Kanungo and Mendonca (1996).

6

Descriptive assumption about human nature

External Locus of control

Limited and

fixed potential

Past &

Prescriptive assumption about the principles thatought to governhuman conduct

Passive and reactive stand

Moralism

Authoritarian &

A review of TQM literature (Kumar 2006) shows that TQM

culture can be considered to be one which uses team,

promotes pride in workmanship, drives out fear, allows

participative management, promotes leadership in place of

supervision and promotes long term orientation among the

members of the organisation (Al-Khalifa & Aspinwall 2000;

Deming 1993; Saha & Hardie 2005). The national cultural

dimensions which are conducive for the TQM culture are high

collectivism, low power distance (i.e. low hierarchy) and

low uncertainty avoidance (Chin & Pun 2002; Tata & Prasad,

1998; Saha & Hardie 2005; Yen et al 2002). For example, high

uncertainty avoidance correlates negatively with pride in

work and lack of fear (Saha & Hardie 2005, p.536). In a

European study, Lagrosen (2002) found out that two

dimensions of culture – power distance and uncertainty

avoidance affect the approach taken for implementation of

TQM as shown in Table 1.

Power Distance

7

Uncertai

nty

avoidanc

e

Low High

Low Tendency to focus onindividual workers.Training of workersemphasised.Responsibility is withthe workers

-

High Tendency to focus onroutines and proceduresto be followed byworkers. Training ofworkers emphasised.Responsibility is in thesystem

Tendency to focus onleaders, leadershipand management.Responsibility iswith the leaders.

Table 1 Approach for TQM implementation as a function

of power distance and uncertainty avoidance

Source: Lagrosen (2002).

Because TQM de-emphasises status distinctions and

empowers employees to make decisions and use their own

intelligence, cultures which are high on ‘power distance’

and ‘uncertainty avoidance’ may not be conducive for TQM

implementation (Tata & Prasad 1998, p.706; Chin & Pun 2002,

p.275). Though empowerment and participative management have

been considered important for successful TQM implementation

in Indian (Wali et al. 2003) and Western contexts (Black &

8

Porter 1996) and also by founding fathers of TQM (Crosby

1979; Deming 1993), it has been argued (Aycan et al. 2000;

Kanungo & Mendonca 1996; Robert et al. 2000) that in low

power distance countries empowerment is welcomed by

employees, but not in high power distance countries like

India. Does it mean that the Indian ethos is against the

cultural philosophy of TQM?

Another cultural dimension which mediates positively in

TQM implementation is collectivism (Kumar 2006). It has been

said that individualistic cultural dimension may not fit

into the group orientation aspects of TQM (Yen et al. 2002).

Collectivists emphasize co-operation, endurance, persistence

and obedience. They tend to have long-term orientation,

leading to long-term commitment to the organization (Bass

quoted by Walumbwa & Lawler 2003, p.1087), - a requirement

critical for success of TQM in an organization (Yen et al.

2002).

Thus there are two cultural requirements for successful

TQM implementation: TQM prefers collectivistic culture and

empowering and participative style of management. However,

9

collectivistic society tends to be more hierarchical (Sinha

1995; Walumbwa & Lawler 2003, p.1084) i.e. high on power

distance which does not support empowering and participative

style of management and thus is not conducive for TQM

implementation. Therefore, the two cultural requirements of

TQM namely high collectivism and low hierarchy are mutually

contradictory. The existing TQM literature has largely

ignored this contradiction in the cultural requirements of

TQM. This paper explains how these two apparently

contradictory cultural requirements of TQM can be dealt with

in the context of Indian culture.

Indian work culture

First a brief understanding of Indian culture is made.

Sinha and Sinha (1990) and Sinha (1997) have identified five

social values which affect organisational effectiveness in

India:

10

(i) Affective reciprocity: It means power play in terms

of affection (sneh) and deference (shradha). Those

who yield to power are treated with due and undue

favour and those who do not yield to power are

discriminated.

(ii) Preference for personalised relationship: This is

akin to low masculinity of Kanungo and Mendonca

(1996).

(iii) Group imbeddedness: The members of a group are

owned and bound by personalised relationship while

others are strangers and must be distanced (Sinha &

Sinha 1990, p. 710). Thus social networking is

through own (apane)-other (paraye) dichotomy.

(iv) Duty and obligation over hedonism: The emphasis in

Hindu religion is on self-control and containing of

impulses. Hence duty consists of appropriate role

behaviour which includes protecting in-group members

and favouring them over others (Sinha 1997, p.59).

(v) Hierarchical perspective: Indians tend to arrange

things, persons, relationships, ideas and almost

11

everything hierarchically. Even the Indian Gods are

hierarchised. The high power distance, status

consciousness, centralisation of decision making,

need to depend upon a patron and so on, are

manifestation of this preference for hierarchy

(Sinha 1997, p.58).

How do these social values affect Indian work culture?

Research on Indian work culture indicates that high power

distance, collectivism and affective reciprocity are major

cultural values of Indian managers (Chhokar 2000, Sinha

1997). With respect to uncertainty avoidance earlier

studies (Hofstede 1980, quoted by Sinha 1997, p.61) have

said Indians are high on uncertainty avoidance but a more

recent study (Chhokar 2000, p.22) found Indians to be

moderate on uncertainty avoidance. This change in Indian

culture necessitates a more critical look at the recent

changes in Indian work culture.

12

Recent changes in Indian work culture

The political equality experienced since independence

by the Indians has resulted in a desire to affect a decrease

in power distance (Chhokar 2000). This means that though the

Indians are high power distance persons, they exhibit a

preference for reduction in the power distance if possible.

In a more recent study, Sinha et al. (2004, p.7) say that

though Hofstede’s dimension of power distance emerged as a

dominant theme, ‘collectivism, masculinity and uncertainty

avoidance did not appear at the top of manager’s mind’ while

these were considered to be dominant part of Indian culture

in an earlier study by Kanungo and Mendonka (1996).

Similarly people have expressed a preference towards

decrease in collectivistic orientation (Chhokar 2000, p.22).

Pearson and Chatterjee (1999, p.144) therefore concluded

that ‘within the context of organizations, Indian employee

can embrace global work values while retaining deep

connection to their societal culture’. Sinha and Kanungo

(1997) provide a sociological explanation of this co-

13

existence of ‘global’ and ‘local’ in Indian’s organisational

behaviour on the basis of what they call ‘context

sensitivity’ and ‘balancing’. Context sensitivity is

basically a thinking principle or a mind-set that is

cognitive in nature and it determines the adaptive nature of

an idea or behaviour in context (Sinha & Kanungo 1997,

p.96). Balancing is a behavioural disposition to avoid

extremes and to integrate or accommodate diverse

considerations.

Comparison between Japanese culture and Indian culture

Since Japan is the birthplace of TQM, it is instructive

to compare the Japanese culture with the Indian culture. In

the context of TQM the similarities between the two cultures

are:

(i) The dependence proneness of Indian is similar to

amae of Japanese (Sinha 1995). In both the cultures, the

dependency is based on a parent-child (oyabun – kobun)

relationship wherein a junior member of a group is related

14

to a senior member who in turn is related to his/her senior.

So a vertical symbiotic relationship is created which is

highly hierarchical with hardly any horizontal integration

(Nakane 1972).

(ii) Therefore, like India, the Japanese society is

hierarchical (‘tate –sakai’ - a vertically structured society)

(Nakane 1972).

(iii) Personalised relationships and nurturance of

subordinates are typical in both cultures. In Japan, a good

leader is like a good father who accepts responsibility for

the development and well being of employees. In return,

these leaders expect obedience and personal loyalty (Maccoby

1994).

(iv) The Japanese preference on incremental improvement

(kaizen) is in line with the slow and steady change favoured

by Indians.

However, there are differences as well:

15

(i) Indians are much less group oriented than the

Japanese. Further, Indian work group is internally

fragmented in terms of own (apane) and others (paraye) (Sinha

1995). The concept of ‘own’ is based on ethnic, caste and

religious similarities. ‘Uchi (us) – soto (them)’ of Japan

corresponds to ‘own –others’ of India. But the Japanese

linkages for ‘own’ are based on seniority and personal

loyalty and are work group based. Thus the workers and

managers of an organisation feel as one group to the

exclusion of other organisations. Nakamura (1964) says that

in India ultimate value is placed on religion, and in Japan

on the state. ‘The religion of Japan is... Japan’. Thus

within an organisational group, unlike the Indians, the

Japanese tend to cooperate together as they realise that

work place cooperation is a must for long term

profitability. In the context of TQM, it is easy to see how

these characteristics are more conducive for teamwork and

development of long-term orientation.

(ii) Indians value work if it is part of a positive

personalised relationship (Sinha 1995). Indians possess an

16

aram culture which means rest and relaxation without being

preceded by hard and exhausting work (Sinha 1995, p. 101)

but work is central to the life of the Japanese. As Loy

(1973) said, “While Indian renunciants abstained from work

and begged for their food;…… Japanese Buddhism came to

repudiate most traditional spiritual disciplines in favour

of those that promote productive activities”. For this work-

oriented mindset, continuous improvement in the work is but

the next logical step.

This comparison shows that there are subtle differences

between the Indian and the Japanese culture. If it is

possible to change the collective orientation of Indians

from the primordial “own –others” to “work groups”, the so-

called dysfunctional Indian social values can play a

facilitating role in developing a TQM culture.

Much like the Indian culture, Japanese culture is also

hierarchical and collectivistic. Japan has been the cradle

of TQM. But the Western literature on culture and TQM

discussed in section 2 has reported that though collectivism

supports TQM, hierarchy does not. Can this contradiction be

17

reconciled or is Japan an aberration? May be the Japanese

internalise TQM in a different way. Khoo and Tan (2003)

found that the Western understanding of TQM emphasizes

breakthrough improvement against the incremental improvement

in Japan. Harmony and respect, group learning and leadership

by example are encouraged in Japanese understanding of TQM,

but in Western approach to TQM, workforce diversity,

autonomy and employee empowerment are encouraged (Khoo & Tan

2003, p.22). In a Japanese firm, there is emphasis on

consensus building, shared decisions, commitment and loyalty

(Khoo & Tan 2003) – aspects which are found in traditional

Indian culture also. This indicates that in India too, TQM

need to be internalised in ways different from the Western

one. This paper now looks at these specific ways.

Indian cultural mores which need to be adapted

for successful TQM implementation

In section 2, this paper has pointed out that

successful TQM implementation requires participatory

18

management style in organizations (Ishikawa 1985; MBNQA

2004). But the socio-cultural dimensions of high power

distance, low masculinity, and high context-sensitive

thinking are incompatible with participative management

(Kanungo & Mendonca 1996, p.276). Yet the success of TQM

in Japan which is also high on these dimensions indicate

that it is possible to build implementational modalities

for TQM which can profit from these cultural dimensions.

It has been seen in section 3 that Indian culture is

transiting from a high power distance and strong uncertainty

avoidance culture to a low one. This paper argues that till

the time these cultural traits are still dominant among

Indians, like the Japanese, Indians too need to identify

such operational modalities for TQM that can profit from

these cultural dimensions. Since literature says that

hierarchy works against TQM, this paper concentrates on

that.

High dependence on superior, status consciousness with

respect to the superior and a tendency for personalized

relationship with the superior are the three dimensions of

19

hierarchy in India (Sinha 1995) which in a fraternal Western

culture, works against TQM implementation. This paper now

discusses how they can be modulated for successful TQM

implementation in the paternal Indian culture. Thereafter

this paper will discuss how these dimensions of hierarchy

lead to a different understanding of team in India in

comparison with the Western understanding of team.

(i) Dependence proneness - Many studies quoted in this paper

have said that the power laden organisational interaction

emanating from hierarchical cultural is dysfunctional for

participative working. Let us try to understand as to how

hierarchy introduces dysfunctionality in an organisational

set up. If hierarchy is a manifestation of power distance,

in the context of TQM implementation, this differential

power status does not permit open discussion between the

superior and the subordinates as it tends to legitimise

coercive behaviour. But in an organization, there are other

bases of power, besides coercive power. They are reward

power, legitimate power, connection power, referent power,

20

information power and expert power (Hersey, Blanchard and

Johnson 2002, p.210).

Among the above power categories, coercive power,

reward power, legitimate power and perhaps connection power

can be thought to come from the position one holds in the

organization. On the other hand, referent power, information

power and expert power can be thought to come from the

person. The authors argue that it is the position based

power types which stifle frank professional discussion

between superior and subordinate. However if the source of

power is transferred to personal bases like referent power,

information power and expert power, the same power laden,

hierarchical organisational situation can in fact facilitate

learning. And learning is central to TQM implementation

(Senge 1994, p.61). Thus what is needed is the exploitation

of the hierarchical orientation of Indians so as to develop

learning. This paper argues that in the Indian context,

because of the ‘learning’ orientation which TQM

implementation generates, hierarchy can facilitate TQM

implementation if the boss-subordinate relationship is

21

repositioned as guru-shishya (teacher-student) relationship.

In a teacher-student relationship, hierarchy remains, but

instead of stifling discussion and dissent, it promotes

curiosity. This promotes discussion which in turn promotes

learning which is central to TQM implementation.

India has a strong tradition of guru-shishya (teacher -

student) relationship, which though hierarchical in nature

has not been dysfunctional. Ancient Indian scriptures like

Upnishad make a special mention of the relationship between

a teacher and a student:

O almighty God, you protect both of us (the teacher and the

student) together; you bear both of us together, may both

earn the shakti (power of learning) together, may our

learning be luminous (impressive); may we never bear ill-

will towards each other (kathopnishad shwetayashawaropnishad).

Even in modern India, a student always addresses

his/her teacher by ‘sir/madam’, and never by the teacher’s

name – even decades after he/she passes out from school

22

/college. But this respect, this differential power

relationship does not stifle discussion or difference of

opinion. This situation still retains the power

differential, but the bases of power shifts from coercive,

connection and position to information, referent and expert.

Thus this paper argues that hierarchy per se is not

problematic. What matters is what is the source of

hierarchy. On what dimension does hierarchy differentiate?

If it is differentiating on higher dimensions of power like

information power, referent power and expert power, it

develops a resonance with the Indian tradition of inquiry

through teacher-student (guru-shishya) relationship and then,

it is conducive for learning and therefore it is conducive

for change. Thus hierarchy can be an advantage – it can

promote compliance towards change if it is based on such

bases of power which invoke a teacher-student (guru-shishya)

relationship between the boss (leader) and the subordinate

rather than a superior-subordinate relationship. In fact,

Indians have a preference for leadership by gurus (teachers)

(Sekhar 2001, p.361). Ancient Indian scripture like Gita

23

also supports a raj-rishi model of leadership where the king

(raj) is also a learned one (rishi –a guru, a teacher)

(Chakraborty 1996; Radhakrishnan 1949, p.383). Ashok is an

example of philosopher-king (raj-rishi) in ancient India

(Chhokar 2003, p.13). There is a contemporary example to

show that teachers are intuitively more acceptable as

leaders in India. After the last general election in India

in the year 2004, a coalition government was to be formed.

The Congress party being the largest coalition partner

suggested three names from its members of parliament as the

possible candidates for the Prime Ministership. Two were

veteran politicians with decades of political experience.

The third one was Dr. Manmohan Singh, an academician whom

all considered politically naïve. He was regarded more as a

university teacher. However, all the coalition partners

unanimously preferred Dr. Manmohan Singh as the next Prime

Minister of India.

Thus learning oriented change induces guru-shishya

(teacher-student) relationship between a boss and a

subordinate which in turn invokes higher power bases like

24

information power and expert power among the subordinates

towards their boss. This, coupled with a subordinate’s

strong existing tendency to comply with their boss’s

instruction because of their socially induced ‘dependence’

relationship with the boss, makes the subordinates go for

the TQM change process without any resistance.

(ii) Personalised relationship – In organisational context, what

is the problem with this tendency of ‘personalised

relationship’ in India and its related concept of ‘own-

others’ which different studies in section 3 have referred

to? Perhaps, the problem here is that personal

considerations begin to influence organisational decisions.

‘I promote my favourite subordinate because I like him’. So

the problem is not personalised relationship per se. The

problem is the extraneous influence it begins to wield on

organisational matters. Thus the right approach is to retain

the personalised relationship, but not let it cloud

professional decision. This paper argues that what Bass

(1990) calls ‘individualised consideration’ as one of the

25

factors of transformational leadership is operationally

similar to ‘personalized relationship’. The common point

between the two is that both believe in one to one

relationship between the boss and the subordinate- the boss

does treat a subordinate as a distinct individual with

his/her distinct set of needs and aspirations. The

difference between the two is that while the propensity for

‘personalised relationship’ makes the Indian boss give

disproportionate reward to his/her own (say favourite)

subordinates to the exclusion of others, the propensity for

‘individualised consideration’, makes the boss relate with

the subordinates on a basis which is equitable (Bass & Avolio

1997, p.36). This emphasis on equity is the crucial

difference between ‘personalised relationship’ and

‘individualised consideration’. Thus, this paper argues

that it is possible to take this Indian propensity for

‘personalised relationship’ and elevate it to the status of

‘individualised consideration’, thereby cleanse it of its

dysfunctionality of being partisan to own to the exclusion

of others. It is to be noted that TQM implementation is

26

facilitated by transformational leadership (Hill, Hazlett &

Meegan 2001; Reed, Lemak & Mero 2002) of which

‘individualised consideration’ is a factor (Bass 1990).

Therefore, instead of having an abstract professional

relationship, if a subordinate prefers a personal

relationship with his/her boss why not turn this preference

to develop work oriented ethos. Hence for successful TQM

implementation, the second way to adapt hierarchical

orientation of Indians is to modulate the ‘personalised

relationship’ dimension of it into ‘equity based personalised

relationship’ as then it becomes philosophically similar to

the ‘individualised consideration’ dimension of

transformational leadership. That is, if the boss could zero

in on a battery of professional expectations for his

subordinates, and deal with his/her subordinates on an

individual basis and reward the subordinates subject to

their satisfactory fulfilment of the desired professional

expectation, then the ‘personalised relationship’ would

stand modulated into ‘individualised consideration’ factor

27

of transformational leadership and facilitate TQM

implementation.

Team formation

Team work is one of the critical success factors of TQM

(Wali et al 2003). This paper now compares team formation in

Western culture and Indian culture. The Western literature,

drawing on the Western egalitarian-fraternal culture has

developed an understanding of hierarchy which means ‘lack of

equality’ or differential power. This lack of equality leads

to stifling inter-personal relationship and then there is no

pooling of individual resources to maintain a mutually

enhancing relationship. Thus there is no teamwork. However,

it is possible that in some other cultural milieu, the same

lack of equality promotes an expanding inter-personal

relationship. This can happen when the underlying culture is

people oriented. A people oriented mind set can make the

superior in an organisation nurture his/her subordinates.

This nurturance then acquires the connotation of benevolent

28

paternalism (Sinha 1995, p.117). A network of such

paternalistic relationship can then give rise to

hierarchical group identification and group affinity. Here,

the people oriented leadership takes the sting out of

hierarchy. Hierarchy then only connotes differential status.

In a high power distance social system, even this

differential status is not fretted upon. The nurturance of

the subordinates by the leader is in fact aided by the

leader’s superior status whether intellectual, social,

spiritual or financial. For further clarity, let us

understand the development of group behaviour in a Western

set up and contrast it with the development of group

behaviour in an Indian set up. Please refer to Figure 2. In

the Western culture, a cluster of cross-functional fraternal

relationships give rise to group formation (stage 1). The

root cause for the emergence of these groups are the

commonalities among end objectives and the formal reporting

relationships whose exact types depend upon the

organisational structure (e.g. functional, matrix, organic

etc). These groups are formally called the teams in the

29

Western set up (stage 2). The Western teams shown in Figure

2 are not linked with each other. Thus if the reporting

relationship changes or if the end objectives change, the

composition of the team changes. However in the Indian

culture, the leaders, superior in status (stage1),

constitute a group which interact with the followers who

also constitute a group. These two hierarchically different

groups maintain all the trappings of hierarchy but they are

bound together by their leader’s nurturance of the

subordinates. Repeated and multi-pronged shots of nurturance

leads to the development of group identity in which the

individual’s identity and importance gets de-emphasized. The

behaviour profile developed in this group gradually morphs

into a collectivistic social norm for the group. The group

then becomes a team in the sense that it now has norms for

professional work as well as for personal interactions. But

unlike the West where different end objectives gave rise to

three (hypothetical) teams, in India, the team is one ‘in-

group’ bound together by the downward nurturance shown by

the leaders and upward status consciousness shown by the

30

subordinates. Further, because of the reciprocation of

nurturance by status consciousness, this team can also be

more lasting than the Western team(s).

31

nurturance

power distance

formal fraternal reportingrelationship

(whether functional, matrix ororganic)

stage 1

stage 2

A B

C

32

Leaders ( no individual identity)Followers (no individual identity)

TeamA

TeamB

TeamC

end objectives

Development of in-group from hierarchy and Development of team from

and nurturance in Indian culture fraternal relationship inWestern culture

Figure 2 Development of groups in Indian culture andteams in Western culture

This is the mechanism through which hierarchy leads to

team work provided it is irrigated by nurturance. Nurturance

is the juice which provides sustenance to hierarchical

relationship and makes it rewarding for subordinates.

Hierarchy thus becomes the facilitator and not the

obstructer of mutually enhancing team behaviour.

Japanese culture, like the Indian culture is people

oriented and encourages nurturance of subordinates (Sinha

1995, p. 117). Earlier, this paper has raised the question

of how to reconcile the mutually contradictory requirement

of low hierarchy and high collectivism for TQM and whether

Japan’s success in TQM is an aberration. The explanation

given above shows how in the TQM movement, the Japanese have

33

been able to blend and indeed profit from the supposedly

contradictory impacts of hierarchical and collectivistic

orientation - unlike the West where, since the leadership

role is not people oriented, the aspect of nurturance does

not come in picture in any organizational relationship.

Therefore in such a contract oriented leader-subordinate

relationship, where the lack of any kind of juice makes the

relationship rather dry, hierarchy will but naturally hinder

discussion, freedom of decision-making etc and that is why

one needs to ‘empower’ one’s subordinates so that they can

take decision on their own. It is to be noted that even in

Indian society, when the nurturance goes out of the

relationship, the hierarchy falls apart. Just as repeated

shots of nurturance leads to group identity, the repeated

lack of nurturance can also lead to disintegration of the

group. Therefore in India, when the father dies, his sons

drift apart from the joint family system. The way to lead a

transiting society like India on the TQM path is to

incorporate this people aspect of its social system in the

organisational culture as suggested in Kumar (2006). Mr.

34

Narsimhan, the President of Sundaram Clayton which was the

first Indian company to get the Deming Prize in 1998 said he

preferred to implement the Japanese way of TQM as one of the

similarities he found between the two cultures was the

‘guru-student relationship

(http://www.saferpak.com/deming_prize_art1.htm).

Conclusion

The common theme between the Japanese and the Indian

culture is harmony among group members and respect for

superiors (Noronha 2002; Khoo & Tan 2003; Sinha 1995). Japan

has exploited this cultural trait for TQM implementation.

The problem with the Indians is that their group affiliation

is not work based; it is based on ethnic consideration of

‘own-others’. The two modulations suggested in this paper

can modify the group affiliation of Indians from ethnic to

work based groups. This way, Indian TQM initiatives too can

profit from harmony among group members (collectivism) and

respect for superiors (hierarchy). Therefore, this paper

35

has argued against the conventional wisdom in TQM literature

that hierarchy is not conducive for TQM implementation and

shown how in the Indian context, hierarchy, operationalised

through the guru-shishya relationship based on the nurturance

of subordinates can aid the learning orientation of

organizational members and facilitate TQM implementation.

Similarly, by superimposing the element of ‘equity’ on the

‘personalised relationship’ dimension of hierarchy, in a

collectivistic society like India, it is possible to elevate

the aspect of ‘personalised relationship’ between superior

and subordinate to the status of ‘individualised

consideration’ dimension of transformational leadership.

This ‘equity based personalised relationship’ is to be

bestowed only upon the satisfactory completion of ‘task’ by

the subordinate. The implementers of TQM in India need to

appreciate the finer dynamics of hierarchy and collectivism

explained in this paper so as not to implant a Western model

in an Indian situation.

36

References

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R.N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J.,

Stahl, G., & Kurshid, A. (2000), “Impact of Culture on Human

Resource Management Practices: A 10-Country Comparison”,

Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol 49 No 1,

pp.192-221.

Al-Khalifa, K.N. & Aspinwall, E.M. (2000), “Using the

Competing Values Framework to identify the ideal culture

profile for TQM: a UK perspective”,

International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and

Management (IJMTM), Vol 2 No 1/2/3/4/5/6/7.

Bass, B.M. (1990), “From Transactional to Transformational

leadership: Learning to Share the Vision”, Organizational

Dynamics, Vol 18 No 3, p.21.

37

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1997), Full Range Leadership

Development, Manual for the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Palo Alto, California.

Black, S.A. & Porter, L.J. (1996), “Identification of

critical factors of TQM”, Decision Sciences, Vol 27 No 1,

pp.1-21.

Chakraborty, S.K. (1996), Ethics in Management: Vedantic

Perspective, Oxford University Press, Calcutta.

Chin, S.C. & Pun, K.F. (2002), “A proposed framework for

implementing TQM in Chinese organizations”, The

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,

Vol 19 No 2/3, pp. 272-294.

Chhokar, J.S. (2000), “Effective leadership in India: a

multi method study”, International Journal of Psychology,

Vol 35 No 3/4, pp.305-?

38

Chhokar, J.S. (2003), “India: Diversity and Complexity in

Action” in Chhokar, J.S., Broadbeck, F.C. & House, R.J.

(Eds), Societal Culture and Leadership in 27 counties: GLOBE

Book of County Chapters, Sage Publications, California.

Chin, S.C. & Pun, K.F. (2002), “A proposed framework for

implementing TQM in Chinese organizations”, The

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,

Vol 19 No 2/3, pp. 272-294.

Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality is free: The Art of making

Quality Certain, Penguin, New York.

Deming, W.E. (1993), Out of Crisis – Quality, Productivity

and Competitive Position, Cambridge University Press,

Madras, India.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H. & Johnson, D.E. (2002),

Management of Organisational Behaviour Leading Human

Resources, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi, India.

39

Hill, F.M., Hazlett, S. & Meegan, S. (2001), “A study of the

transition from ISO 9000 to TQM in the context of

organisational learning”, The International Journal of

Quality & Reliability Management, Vol 18 No 2, pp. 142-158.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International

Differences in Work-Related Values, Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Ishikawa, K. (1985), What is Total Quality Control? The

Japanese Way, translated by Lu, D.J., Prentice Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.

Kanungo, R.N. & Mendonca, M. (1996), “Cultural contingencies

and leadership in developing countries”, in Bacharach, Erez

& Bamberger (Eds), Research in Sociology of Organisations,

JAI Press, Vol 14, pp. 263-295, Greenwich CT.

Khoo, H.H. & Tan, K.C. (2003), “Managing for quality in the

USA and Japan: differences between MBNQA, DP and JQA”, The

40

TQM Magazine, Vol 15 No 1, pp. 14-24.

Kumar, M.R. (2006), TQM as the basis for Organisational

Transformation of Indian Railways – A Study in Action

Research, DBA thesis, Southern Cross University, Australia.

Lagrosen, S. (2002), “Quality Management in Europe: A

cultural perspective”, The TQM Magazine, Vol 14 No 5,

pp.275-283.

Loy, R. (1993), “Transcendence East and West”, Man and

World, Vol 26 No 4, pp. 403-427.

Maccoby, M. (1994), “Creating Quality Cultures in the East

and West”, Research Technology Management, Vol 37 No 1, pp.

57-59.

MBNQA - Baldrige National Quality Program 2004 Criteria for

Performance Excellence (n.d.), viewed on 21 May 2004,

www.baldrige.nist.gov.

41

Nakamura, H. (1964), Ways of thinking of Eastern People:

India, China, Tibet and Japan, East-West Centre Press,

Honululu.

Nakane, C. (1972), Japanese Society, University of

California Press, Berkley.

Noronha, C. (2002), “Chinese cultural values and total

quality climate”, Managing Service Quality, Vol 12 No 4, pp.

210-223.

Pearson, C.A.L. & Chatterjee, S.R. (1999), “Changing Work

Values of Senior Indian managers: An Empirical Study”,

International Journal of Management, Vol 16 No 1, pp. 139-

145.

Radhakrishnan, S. (1949), Bhagwad Gita, George Allen and

Unwin Brothers Limited, London.

42

Reed, R., Lemak, D.J. & Mero, N.L. (2002), “When Quality

Works: A Premature Post-Mortem on TQM”, Journal of Business

and Management, Vol 6 No 4, pp. 391-410.

Robert, C., Probst, T.M., Martocchio, J.J., Drasgrow, F. &

Lawler, J.J. (2000), “Empowerment and Continuous Improvement

in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting

Fit on the basis of Dimensions of Power Distance and

Individualism”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 85 No 5,

pp. 643-658.

Saha, S. &  Hardis,  M. 2005, "Culture of Quality and the

Australian Construction Industry", Proceedings of the 13th

Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean

Construction, Sydney, pp. 531-538.

Sekhar, R.C. (2001), “Trends in ethics and styles of

leadership”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol 10 No

4, pp. 360-363.

43

Senge, P.M.(1994), “Building Learning Organizations”, in

Costin, H. (Ed.), Readings in Total Quality Management,

Dryden Press, Hinsdale, FL, pp. 59-72.

Sinha, J.B.P. (1995), The Cultural Context of Leadership

and Power, Sage Publications, New Delhi.

Sinha, J.B.P. (1997), “A cultural perspective in

organisational behaviour in India”, in Erley, C.P. & Erez,

M. (Eds). New Perspective on Industrial/organisational

psychology, New Lexington Press, San Francisco, pp. 53-74.

Sinha, J.B.P., Bhupatkar, A.P., Sukumaran, A., Gupta, P.,

Gupta, R., Panda A., Singh, S., Sinha, R.B.N., Singh-

Sengupta, S. & Srinivasan, E.S. (2004), “Facets of Societal

and Organisational Cultures and Managers’ Work Related

Thoughts and Feelings”, Psychology & Developing Society, Vol

16 No 1, pp. 1-26.

44

Sinha, J.B.P. & Kanungo, R.N. 1997, "Context Sensitivity and

Balancing in Indian Organisational Behaviour", International

Journal of Psychology, Vol. 32 No 2, pp.93-105.

Sinha, J.B.P. & Sinha, D. (1990), “Role of social values in

Indian organisations”, International Journal of Psychology,

Vol 25 No 5/6, pp. 705-714.

Tan, K.C. & Khoo, H.H. 2002, “The relevance of Confucianism

to national quality awards in Southeast Asia”, International

Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol 2 No 1, pp. 65-82.

Tan, K.C., Wong, M.F., Mehta, T. & Khoo, H.H. (2003),

“Factors affecting the development of national quality

awards”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol 7 No 3, pp. 37-

45.

Tata, J. & Prasad, S. (1998), “Cultural and structural

constraints on total quality management implementation”,

45

Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 9 No

8, pp. 703-710.

Walumbwa, F.O. & Lawler J.J. (2003), “Building effective

organisations: transformational leadership, collectivist

orientation, work related attitudes and withdrawal

behaviours in three emerging economies”, Human Resource

Management, Vol 14 No 7, pp.1083-1101.

Wali, A.A., Deshmukh, S.G. & Gupta, A.D. (2003), “Critical

success factors of TQM: a select study of Indian

organizations”, Production Planning & Control, Vol 14 No 1,

pp. 3-14.

Yen, H.J., Krumwiede, D.W. & Sheu, C. (2002), “A cross-

cultural comparison of top management personality for TQM

implementation”, Total Quality Management, Vol 13 No 3, pp.

335-346.

46