Many observers have noted that American executives engage in "crisis management": the focus on immediate problems with short term answers rather than long term trends with strategic implications for the organization. Managing in a minute, encircling quality, searching for excellence and striving for competitiveness - buzzword management - are all scrutinized for a quick fix solution. Whenever a promising technique comes along, the program to implement it is "staffed out." W. Edwards Deming, a founder of "Japanese Management," fears that "most QCs in America are...management's hope for a lazy way out, management in desperation." In the words of Schonberger, we are "program happy" - the more programs, the better.
The Japanese, however, believe that the fewer programs the better. Japan does have a large number of circles, but QCs are a theory of management not simply a program. Very careful planning preceded their introduction in contrast to the rush to establish QCs here. While many organizations can install them and achieve short term benefits, the real test is whether the adoption-disappointment-discontinuation cycle characteristic of managerial fads can be avoided, whether American executives can go beyond "the 'instant gratification syndrome' by which (they) 'manage'” organizations.
Not surprisingly, employees who have seen other crash programs quickly become peripheral to the job are likely to be skeptical about QCs. Decisions to implement QCs that emphasize short term over long term results not only diminish their potential effectiveness, but also may actually exacerbate productivity problems. To help avoid such problems, program ownership should lie with line management. If human resource development staffs are limited to a consultative role, then there is little danger that employees will see QCs as just another "touchy-feely", personnel program with marginal relevance to the work of the organization.
The existence of an administrative center responsible for overall QC development and maintenance can provide the necessary support and guidance to line managers. Without such a center, programs, however laudable, are left to everyone (or no one) to implement, and usually fall by the wayside under pressure of more important or more specific responsibilities. Few management initiatives run by themselves; new patterns of work must be reinforced. Unless the QC effort is well managed, past practices and behaviors are likely to overwhelm it.
The Japanese, however, believe that the fewer programs the better. Japan does have a large number of circles, but QCs are a theory of management not simply a program. Very careful planning preceded their introduction in contrast to the rush to establish QCs here. While many organizations can install them and achieve short term benefits, the real test is whether the adoption-disappointment-discontinuation cycle characteristic of managerial fads can be avoided, whether American executives can go beyond "the 'instant gratification syndrome' by which (they) 'manage'” organizations.
Not surprisingly, employees who have seen other crash programs quickly become peripheral to the job are likely to be skeptical about QCs. Decisions to implement QCs that emphasize short term over long term results not only diminish their potential effectiveness, but also may actually exacerbate productivity problems. To help avoid such problems, program ownership should lie with line management. If human resource development staffs are limited to a consultative role, then there is little danger that employees will see QCs as just another "touchy-feely", personnel program with marginal relevance to the work of the organization.
The existence of an administrative center responsible for overall QC development and maintenance can provide the necessary support and guidance to line managers. Without such a center, programs, however laudable, are left to everyone (or no one) to implement, and usually fall by the wayside under pressure of more important or more specific responsibilities. Few management initiatives run by themselves; new patterns of work must be reinforced. Unless the QC effort is well managed, past practices and behaviors are likely to overwhelm it.