Should Organizations Pay for Quality?
- 1 April 1992
- journal article
- Published by Emerald Publishing in Personnel Review
- Vol. 21 (4) , 3-11
- https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000000805
Abstract
TQM creates a dilemma for organizations. The dilemma is that TQM implies increased employee responsibility at shopfloor level. Increased responsibility traditionally equates with increased pay. The TQM gurus however advise that monetary rewards are likely to prove counterproductive. Analyses the problem and examines the potential impact of coercive and symbolic power as alternatives to material reward. Concludes that, although little can be achieved by rewarding contributions with money, neither of the alternatives are workable. The answer lies in matching increased responsibility with increased control. Suggests that organizations which succeed in adjusting this balance may gain a competitive advantage ahead of the Japanese.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Why Quality Circles Failed but Total Quality Management Might SucceedBritish Journal of Industrial Relations, 1991
- Just-in-Time, Sub-Contracting and the Small FirmWork, Employment & Society, 1991
- New Production Arrangements: The Totally Flexible Cage?Work, Employment & Society, 1989
- The limits to‘Japanisation’—Just‐in‐Time, labour relations and the UK automotive industryNew Technology, Work and Employment, 1988
- CORPORATE CULTURE: THE LAST FRONTIER OF CONTROL?[1]Journal of Management Studies, 1986
- Participation and OrganizationPublished by Springer Nature ,1985
- Effects of Leader Contingent and Noncontingent Reward and Punishment Behaviors on Subordinate Performance and Satisfaction.The Academy of Management Journal, 1982
- Notes on the Concept of CommitmentAmerican Journal of Sociology, 1960
- Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude changeJournal of Conflict Resolution, 1958