To obtain an advantage in the market, firms increasingly compete on four characteristics simultaneously--quality, price, delivery and flexibility (DeMeyer et al., 1989). But, the firm's ability to provide high quality is the necessary foundation for it to compete cost effectively on delivery and flexibility (Ferdows and DeMeyer, 1990). Total Quality Management (TQM) is a management philosophy that may refer to any number of employee interventions and techniques used to improve quality. Tenner and DeToro (1992) suggest that TQM is a basic business strategy to provide goods and services that completely satisfy the customers by utilizing the employees' talents while providing a positive financial return to the shareholders.

During the 1980s, managers rushed to implement TQM programs as evidence of their firms' quality problems increased (Cole, 1989). Some of these TQM programs were successful (e.g., Byrne, 1992; Pascoe, 1992; Plumb, 1992; Ramberg, 1994; Numerof and Abrams, 1994), but a large number of failures were reported (Eskildson, 1994). Explanations of these failures have primarily relied on anecdotal evidence and many questions surrounding these cases still exist (Reger et al., 1994). Currently, the lack of a well developed TQM theory hinders efforts to address why some implementations of TQM fail. Theoretical development of TQM is needed so that managers can predict the outcome of their interventions. Furthermore, objective analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of TQM as a management method requires clearly stated theory to direct inquiry and research (Dean and Bowen, 1994).

BACKGROUND

Total quality management evolved primarily in Japan with contributions from practitioners and consultants from both the U.S. and Japan (i.e., Deming, Juran, Feigenbaum, Crosby, Ishikawa and Taguchi). While there are differences between their viewpoints, these contributors borrowed from each other as the TQM management philosophy evolved, and all six accept the four major principles listed in Table 1. (See Dobyns and Crawford-Mason (1991), and Cole (1989) for brief histories of this evolution.) The first principle of TQM is that the primary goal of the company must be to satisfy customers. The second principle emphasizes that quality is the output of a system that includes the product's design, purpose, and everything necessary to provide a product to satisfy the customers. The third principle of TQM states that people are the key to quality -- there must be total involvement of everyone in the organization. And the fourth principle asserts that quality starts with top management (Dobyns and Crawford-Mason, 1991).

Table 1. TQM Principles

TQM Principles                   Garvin (1986)

1. Customer satisfaction is      1. Customer satisfaction is
the primary goal                 the primary goal

2. Quality is the output of      2. Use entire system as the
a system                         framework to examine
                                 issues about quality

3. Total involvement is          3. Worker commitment
necessary                        improves quality

4. Quality starts with top       4. Management commitment
management                       improves quality

TQM Principles                   Saraph et al. (1989) &
                                 Benson et al. (1991)

1. Customer satisfaction is      1. Emphasis on meeting customer
the primary goal                 requirements

2. Quality is the output of      2. Quality department's role
a system                         3. Product design
                                 4. Supplier quality management
                                 5. Process management
                                 6. Quality data and reporting

3. Total involvement is          7. Employee involvement improves
necessary                        quality
                                 8. Training improves quality

4. Quality starts with top       9. Corporate support is
management                       correlated with high quality

TQM Principles                   TQM Interventions

1. Customer satisfaction is      Use cross-functional teams
the primary goal                 Top management leadership

2. Quality is the output of      Use of process measures
a system                         Use of cross-functional teams

3. Total involvement is          Employee involvement in
necessary                        process design
                                 Employee skill development
4. Quality starts with top
management                       Top management leadership

The limited empirical research related to these principles, summarized in Table 1, suggests that there is some consensus concerning these principles. First, Garvin's (1986) finding's, based on a comparison of U.S. and Japanese air conditioner manufacturers, support these four quality principles. He found that the best performing companies continually strived to improve customer satisfaction. When quality was not the number one priority of a firm, quality problems increased, leading to reduced customer satisfaction. In addition, the firms with the fewest quality problems used the entire manufacturing system as their framework to examine quality problems. Last, those firms whose workers and managers were highly committed to quality had fewer quality problems.

Saraph, Benson and Schroeder (1989) and Benson, Saraph and Schroeder (1991) identified, validated and established strong empirical support for the importance of nine TQM factors shown in Table 1. They agreed with TQM principle 1 that customer satisfaction is essential. The factors representing the firm's quality context (as measured by the quality department's role, the product design process, the supplier management process, management of the process and the system's quality reporting methods) correspond to TQM principle 2. They also identified employee involvement and training (TQM Principle 3) and corporate support (TQM Principle 4) as factors critical to achieving quality.

THE USE OF TQM TO ACHIEVE EMPOWERMENT AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Table 1 identifies five specific interventions implied by the TQM principles. The model in Figure I proposes an explanation of how these interventions influence employee empowerment or intrinsic task motivation, and how empowerment leads to customer satisfaction. This model addresses the following research questions: 1) What leadership actions influence TQM's focus on increasing customer satisfaction?; 2) How do the TQM change interventions influence those employee psychological variables that are integral to the empowerment process?; and 3) How does employee empowerment improve customer satisfaction? The answer to these questions depends on the relationships among three major sets of variables: 1) TQM change interventions; 2) employee psychological changes; and 3) customer satisfaction. We propose that the TQM change interventions positively influence the employee psychological variables, and that these psychological changes lead to employee empowerment. Finally, we suggest a link between employee empowerment and customer satisfaction that provides the basis for improved competitiveness. Note that the model illustrates a positive feedback loop from improved customer satisfaction that further enhances employee empowerment. The basis for this model, that employees must be influenced in order for TQM to be effective, is consistent with both Juran (1992) and Deming's (1993) views that employee motivation is essential to achieve quality and supported by Flynn, Schroeder and Sakakibara's (1995) findings.

[Figure I ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

TQM Change Interventions

The model in Figure I illustrates the proposed relationship between specific TQM interventions that are consistent with the TQM principles as outlined in Table 1, and the employee psychological variables that are associated with empowerment. We suggest that in order to achieve customer satisfaction within a TQM framework, at least five TQM change interventions are necessary: top management leadership, employee involvement in the process design, the use of process measures, employee skill development, and the use of cross-functional teams. Each of these interventions is discussed in more detail below.

Top Management Leadership. Consistent with previous literature, we propose that top management leadership plays a key role in creating a customer-focused organization. The superficial use of TQM has been associated with a lack of top management commitment and leadership (Dale and Lightburn, 1992). Tornow and Wiley (1991), Barbee and Bott (1991) and Johnson and Daniel (1991) found that employee attitudes and customer satisfaction depend on management effectiveness and leadership. Those employees who perceive management practices to be supportive of quality and customer service are more likely to provide a superior level of quality to their customers. Since managers' attitudes affect their employees' attitudes, managers must ensure the firm is focused on producing customer satisfaction.

One leadership technique that can be used to create a customer-focused organization is to develop and communicate a clear vision and mission for the firm that emphasizes continuous improvement of quality and customer satisfaction. Managers should also translate this mission into goals, communicate these goals to all employees, behave consistently with these goals, and make these goals a guide to daily decisions (Barbee and Bott, 1991; Johnson, 1991). Top management also leads by removing any barriers to continuous improvement which would undermine employee morale and hurt customer satisfaction. These barriers prevent employees from delivering high quality service since they have no power to remove the barriers (Barbee and Bott, 1991). Top management can eliminate a large barrier to improvement by creating a supportive and trusting culture that encourages employees to correct their own mistakes and accept the risks associated with innovation (Fleming, 1991). Egalitarian treatment of employees and other symbolic actions (i.e., personally attending employee award sessions) help to create this culture by signalling that employees are crucial to the firm's success.

Employee Involvement in the Process Design. Process improvement teams are a commonly used method to increase employee involvement. A process improvement team typically includes trained professionals and representatives from departments affected by the process. Improvement teams both prevent process problems and acquaint team members with the overall company goals (Harrington, 1987). Another involvement technique used by many companies (e.g., Xerox, Motorola, Milliken, Federal Express) is to appoint a "process owner" for each chain of the process (Bhote, 1992). In order to prevent problems and customer issues from falling through the cracks, this owner takes responsibility to ensure that the internal processes create end customer satisfaction.

The Use of Process Measures. Process measures (i.e., the number of improvement suggestions submitted by a team, the number of employees certified at certain skill levels) create a record of improvements to the process itself while results measures are measures of the output (Imai, 1986). If managers rely solely on results measures, they do not obtain an understanding of the process and may blame employees for poor outputs when the process itself is flawed. Also, the use of process measures encourage employees to solve problems and improve the process, and therefore helps to increase their commitment to improving the system.

Skill Development. As quality is the output of a system, so are employees' skills the key resource of that system. TQM requires three types of skills training-job skills, team/interaction skills, and quality/action skills (Wellins, 1992). Job skills are necessary to ensure that each employee thoroughly understands his/her job and the jobs of others. Job skills address problem solving capabilities and therefore enhance the employee's ability to identify, analyze, develop, and implement solutions to problems without management intervention. Interaction skills ensure that team members know how to communicate effectively and resolve conflicts. Quality skills training includes the use of statistical process control tools as well as customer satisfaction and sensitivity training to emphasize the qualitative difference between simply serving customers and actually satisfying them (Fleming, 1991; Feldman, 1991).

Cross-functional Teams. Functional isolation describes a situation where functions are compartmentalized and each seeks to achieve its own goals rather than to coordinate with other functions to achieve the organization's goals. In general, functional isolation increases product lead times, reduces innovation and service dependability, and reduces the firm's focus on satisfying the customer (Juran, 1992). To increase customer satisfaction, continuous improvement must be sought across functional boundaries. The use of cross-functional teams--groups of functional experts assembled to conduct a specific project--reflects management's recognition that quality is the output of a system, not one function. Management must ensure that the team's primary goal is customer satisfaction by giving the team a specific critical issue to resolve or a particular customer to serve. In general, the use of cross-functional teams improves responsiveness to the customer and increases employee involvement in improvement efforts (Fleming, 1991).

Psychological Changes

These TQM change interventions should combine to create positive psychological changes in employees' powerlessness perceptions, interpretive styles and global assessments. The model in Figure I predicts that these psychological changes combine to enhance the employees' specific task assessments, thus creating empowered (i.e., intrinsically motivated) employees. The proposed relationships are discussed in further detail in the following sections.

Powerlessness Perceptions. Conger and Kanungo (1988) suggest that certain contextual factors in organizations (including the first thirteen listed in Table 2) contribute to employee perceptions of powerlessness and lower feelings of self-efficacy among employees. The framework presented here also incorporates a fourteenth contextual factor, fear, suggested by Goski and Belfry (1991) who believe that some employees resist empowerment because they fear blame. As shown in Figure I, we predict that each of the TQM interventions discussed above plays a role in reducing the employees' perceptions of powerlessness. Employee involvement in the process design limits the first three contextual factors - the firm's bureaucratic climate, high rule structure and authoritarian supervision -- since the employees themselves help design the work and create the rules (Ford and Fotler, 1995). Both involvement in process improvement and the use of cross-functional teams should increase the employees' contact with senior managers (contextual factor 4) as they report their successes, failures and needs.

Table 2. Contextual Factors Contributing to Employee Perceptions of Powerlessness

Contextual Factor

1. Impersonal bureaucratic climate

2. High rule structure

3. Authoritarian supervision

4. Limited contact with senior management

5. Poor communication

6. Lack of network forming opportunities

7. Lack of reason for actions/consequences

8. Unrealistic Goals

9. Lack of meaningful goals and tasks

10. Lack of appropriate authority and discretion

11. Limited participation in decisions and
communications that affect job performance

12. Low task variety

13. Highly established routines

14. Fear

The fifth contextual factor, poor communication, should be improved by top management leadership, employee involvement and cross-functional teams. A major function of top management leadership is to communicate with employees. Employee involvement creates a corresponding increase in the employees' responsibility for communication since they have to identify and communicate about problems in the process. Serving on cross-functional teams should increase employees' communication with employees who perform other functions, since they will be working together to resolve mutual problems. The use of cross-functional teams should also reduce contextual factor 6 as these teams increase the number of network forming opportunities for employees by giving them many opportunities to meet employees from other functions. Employee involvement and top management leadership (i.e., communication of the mission) should increase the employees' understanding of the reasons for management actions and consequences of actions. Both increased involvement and leadership allow the employees to learn more about the firm. As their understanding increases they will perceive the reasons for management actions and consequences, thus reducing contextual factor 7.

Contextual factor 8 should be reduced by employee involvement and cross-functional teams. The increased communication and contact with senior management that comes from employees' involvement with cross-functional teams helps them understand the process and its limits and leads them to create realistic goals. This goal setting process and top management leadership (i.e., communication of the firm's vision/mission) also provides meaning for the goals and tasks, thereby reducing contextual factor 9. Contextual factors 10 and 11 should be reduced with the involvement and the use of cross-functional teams as these interventions require that the employees receive the appropriate authority and discretion to participate in decisions and communications that affect their job performance.

Contextual factors 12 and 13 should be decreased by skill development, the use of process measures and the use of cross-functional teams. Skill development allows employees to assume more responsibilities and consequently perform a wider variety of tasks which also reduces the number of highly established routines. In order to effectively improve the process, employees need to engage in problem solving and communication behaviors which increases their task variety and decreases established routines. The employees' service on cross-functional teams also increases the variety of tasks in their work and reduces established routines. Contextual factor 14, fear, is also reduced by the use of process measures. The use of arbitrary numerical goals and a focus on negative results helps to create employee fear (Gitlow and Gitlow, 1987). The use of process measures, on the other hand, focuses management and employees on the positive results. Their use also decreases the reliance on arbitrary numerical goals. Based on the above discussion, the following is proposed:

Proposition 1: TQM change interventions

will reduce employee perceptions of powerlessness.

Interpretive Style. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) suggest that the employee's interpretive style plays a large role in how the employee responds to external events and management interventions. These authors suggest that the interpretation of environmental events and management inputs depends on the employees' envisioning, evaluating, and attributing styles. More specifically, environmental events will be interpreted positively if the employees envision successes as opposed to obstacles. In addition, employees who do not use absolute standards to evaluate events or do not perceive anything short of a quantitative standard as being a failure have a positive interpretive style. And last, employees with positive interpretive styles are not likely to utilize stable and/or internal attributions (competence as opposed to lack of effort) for failures but do utilize these attributions for successes.

As illustrated in Figure I, we propose that the use of process measures will influence interpretive styles. First, employees are more likely to envision success when it is measured by a variety of processes that they control than when it is determined only by outcome factors (results measures) not entirely under their control. The use of process measures should also positively influence evaluating styles by creating a variety of measures, so employees do not have to rely solely on absolute quantitative outcomes. Using process measures also encourages employees to develop a process orientation, and this orientation increases the probability that employees will attribute causes of failures to processes (i.e., unstable events or things that can be easily improved) rather than stable causes that cannot be easily changed. Therefore,

Proposition 2: The use of process measure

will positively influence employee

interpretive styles.

Global Assessments. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) define global assessments as generalized beliefs about competence, impact, meaningfulness and choice. They suggest that global assessments are the result of experiences and influence more specific task assessments (to be discussed below) in ambiguous situations. A sense of competence is the degree to which an individual perceives that he or she can perform at the desired level when attempting to do so.

The model proposes that skill development and the use of process measures are likely to enhance global assessments. The self-confidence of the employees (global sense of competence) should also be enhanced as skills develop over time and they are more likely to experience success as a result. The employee's global assessment of impact is defined as the degree to which individuals have an internal locus of control or believe that they are masters of their own fate (Bandura, 1977; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). As employees' skills develop over time, it is likely that they will feel more control over their performance and in turn more control over the overall company results. As management uses process measures to evaluate their efforts, employees are more likely to believe that they have some control over how they are evaluated since these measures reflect their efforts during the process as opposed to arbitrary outcome figures.

The employees' global assessment of meaningfulness (i.e., the general extent of psychological investment in caring for and commitment to one's task responsibilities) is likely to be enhanced by skill development. As the company invests time and money in training the employees, it is likely that they will be more committed to their jobs and care more about their performance. In addition, employees are also more likely to psychologically invest in responsibilities when the risk of failure is reduced through skills training. Likewise, an emphasis on process measures should provide employees with more knowledge about how their portion of the process impacts overall performance, and in turn should enhance their global sense of meaningfulness.

Employee skill development and the use of process measures should also enhance the employees' global assessments of choice. A global sense of choice is analogous to deCharms' (1968) concept of locus of causality or the generalized tendency to view oneself as the reason for behaviors. As employees' skills develop they become more capable of selecting among various alternatives to improve performance, which contributes to a sense of choice. The use of process measures emphasizes various aspects of the process which should give employees more freedom in selecting which areas to focus their efforts onto at any one time (i.e., thus enhancing their sense of choice). Therefore,

Proposition 3: Skill development and the

use of process measures will

combine to enhance employee global assessments.

Employee Empowerment (Employee Task Assessments)

Much of the literature (e.g., Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Fleming, 1991; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) suggests that empowerment is the result of psychological change (i.e., a state of mind). The task assessments of competence, impact, meaningfulness, and choice are the four cognitions (i.e., employee beliefs, attitudes, or perceptions) that Thomas and Velthouse (1990) propose as the primary basis for worker empowerment. They suggest that task assessments motivate a person's behavior in any one situation as opposed to global assessments that represent cumulative beliefs. A sense of impact is defined as the degree to which an individual believes he or she can produce the desired results with respect to work tasks. A sense of meaningfulness is defined as the consistency between the purposes and goals of an individual's tasks and his or her own personal standards and ideals. Last, a sense of choice is identified as the degree to which an individual's behavior is perceived as being a result of his or her volition.

The model predicts that skill development and the use of cross-functional teams will positively impact employee task assessments. Employee skill development should enhance task assessments in much the same way that it enhances global assessments. Obviously, skill development is likely to enhance the employees' sense of competence by increasing their capability to perform the task at hand. Skill development should enhance the employees' sense of impact by increasing their ability to produce desired task results. Also, skill development is likely to increase their willingness to personally accept and identify with task goals and standards leading to an increase in their sense of meaningfulness. And last, skill development is likely to enhance the employees' sense of choice as they perceive more options for performance and improvement on their tasks as a result of their new skills.

The employees' sense of competence is likely to be enhanced by cross-functional teams, as these teams consist of employees who have different perspectives and skills, and are therefore likely to solve a problem more quickly and effectively than the individual employee (Dumaine, 1990). The use of cross-functional teams should increase the employees' understanding of the entire process and how their task influences other functions. This understanding is likely to enhance the employees' sense of impact since it gives them a better perspective on how their actions impact overall results. Cross-functional team membership is also likely to increase employees' acceptance of and identification with the task's goals (i.e., meaningfulness) as their service on these teams increases their understanding of their role in relation to others. Participation on a cross-functional team is also likely to enhance the employees' sense of choice since it gives them more input into decisions about their task as well as other functions. Therefore,

Proposition 4: Skill development and the

use of cross-functional

teams will positively impact

employee task assessments.

The model in Figure I proposes that reductions in the powerlessness perceptions that are identified in Table 2 are likely to enhance employee task assessments. First, a decrees: in the impersonal bureaucratic climate (factor 1) of the organization should increase the employees' sense of impact as they perceive that there is less red tape preventing them from performing their job. A decrease in high rule structure and authoritarian supervision (factors 2 and 3) should offer employees more options to perform their tasks, thereby increasing their sense of choice. In addition, this decrease in the high rule structure and authoritarian supervision is likely to increase employees' perceptions that the company trusts them, which in turn should enhance their sense of competence. More contact with senior management, better communication, and more network forming opportunities (factors 4, 5 and 6) should all enhance the employees' sense of competence and impact by providing them with more information to help them perform well and produce the desired results.

Clarifying the reasons for actions and consequences and establishing more realistic and meaningful goals (factors 7, 8 and 9) should all increase the employees' sense of meaningfulness as employees are more likely to accept and identify with these actions and goals. In addition, more realistic goals should also enhance the employees' sense of competence as they have more confidence that these goals can be achieved. Providing employees the appropriate authority and discretion (factor 10) is likely to enhance their sense of choice as well as their sense of competence as they perceive management's confidence in them. Increasing the employees' opportunities to participate in decisions (factor 11) should enhance their sense of impact and meaningfulness, since it gives them more input (enhanced impact) and generally leads to greater acceptance of and commitment to the goals (enhanced meaningfulness). Increasing task variety and decreasing highly established routines (factors 12 and 13) should contribute to the employees' sense of choice as they gain more flexibility in performing their jobs. Finally, decreased fear (factor 14) should enhance employees' sense of competence as they become more willing to innovate and solve problems on their own. Therefore,

Proposition 5: Decreases in powerlessness

perceptions enhance employee task assessments.

Employee task assessments are also likely to be influenced by global assessments and interpretive styles. Employees with positive interpretive styles can "contribute to their own empowerment by construing events in ways that enhance the task assessments" (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990: 675). For example, employees who envision success as opposed to failure and attribute success to stable or internal factors are more likely to feel that they can perform at the desired level (competence) and produce the desired results (impact) with respect to specific tasks. In addition, those who attribute success to stable or internal factors and attribute failure to unstable or external factors are also more likely to feel a sense of meaningfulness concerning a task. In other words, they are more likely to personally accept the task goals if they believe that successful performance is within their control and that they would not likely be blamed for task failure. Last, employees are more likely to perceive more choice over their task behavior when they do not evaluate performance in the form of an absolute quantitative standard.

Global assessments, which are individual difference factors, influence task assessments in ambiguous situations and "fill in the gaps" in situations of uncertainty (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990: 673). For example, employees whose global sense of competence is high are more likely to feel that they can perform at the desired level in a situation (task sense of competence) where information about the task is ambiguous. Likewise, when faced with an uncertain task, employees who generally have a high global sense of impact (internal locus of control) are more likely to perceive that they can produce the desired results in a specific situation (task sense of impact). Therefore,

Proposition 6: Enhanced interpretive styles

and global assessments will

have a positive impact on

employee task assessments.

Increased Customer Satisfaction

Much of the past literature stops short of predicting organizational outcomes that will result from motivational empowerment. This model suggests that the empowered employees make customer satisfaction possible by continually striving to improve quality. The specific task assessments in this model are intrinsic rewards that reinforce continued striving (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Evidence from top rated service firms support the proposition that intrinsic task motivation is the key contributor to customer satisfaction (e.g., Barbee and Bott, 1991; Fleming, 1991; Johnson, 1991). Empirical evidence also supports a positive relationship between employee satisfaction (i.e., perceptions and attitudes) and customer satisfaction (Schneider, 1980; Schneider and Bowen, 1985; Tornow and Wiley, 1991), and research supports a direct link between the employee task assessments (discussed above) and employee satisfaction (Tyman, 1988). For example, increased customer satisfaction has been positively related with employees who feel qualified (high sense of competence) to make decisions independently (high sense of choice) (Johnson, 1991). In addition, customers enjoy interacting with employees who have the power (high sense of choice) and confidence (high sense of impact) to act on their behalf (Barbee and Bott, 1991).

In sum, the organizations that have positioned themselves for success are those that focus on empowering their work force (Bennis and Nannus, 1985; Wellins, 1992). Through empowerment firms achieve continuous quality improvement which in turn leads to enhanced customer satisfaction. Empowered employees are confident that they can perform (sense of competence); feel that they make a difference (sense of impact); personally accept their task purposes and goals (sense of meaningfulness); and perceive that they can choose the appropriate task behaviors to improve quality (sense of choice). We therefore predict the following:

Proposition 7: Enhanced employee task

assessments of impact, competence,

meaningfulness, and choice will

increase customer satisfaction.

Increased customer satisfaction and managers' recognition of the employees' role in achieving this satisfaction should in turn enhance the employees' perceptions of competence, impact, meaningfulness and choice. Barbee and Bott (1991) suggest that an atmosphere of positive employee attitudes becomes apparent to customers and that this leads to a cycle of employee success and customer satisfaction. Achieving increased customer satisfaction should enhance the employees' sense of competence and impact as they perceive that they are performing at the desired level and achieving the desired results. In addition, this success should also positively influence the employees' sense of meaningfulness as they are more likely to personally accept task purposes and goals when they have prior evidence that success can be achieved. We therefore propose a positive feedback loop in this model from customer satisfaction to employee task assessments.

Proposition 8: Improved customer satisfaction

will enhance employee task assessments.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

As with any theory that addresses individual responses to interventions, certain of the relationships proposed may be moderated by individual differences. Although the model addresses a few individual differences (global assessments and interpretive style), there are also likely to be other less systematic sources of variation such as a desire for growth and responsibility on the job (Miller and Pritchard, 1992), and an ability to interact effectively with others. Goski and Belfry state that "the reality is that not every employee will want to be empowered and in actuality, most have had very little experience with empowerment" (1991: 213).

Regardless of this limitation that is inherent in any theory involving individual psychological responses, empowerment is critically important in enabling U.S. businesses to survive in a national and international marketplace. In addition, although no organization can expect 100 percent participation, the majority of people in the work force today have expressed the desire for respect, responsibility, recognition, and flexibility in their work (Goski and Belfry, 1991).

The proposition linking global assessments and interpretive styles to intrinsic motivation suggests that it may be useful for human resource practitioners to consider these variables in their selection process. Organizations that attempt to select employees with an internal locus of control (global sense of impact), a high degree of self-efficacy (global competence), or who envision success as opposed to failure (positive interpretive style), may have a head start empowering their employees.

It is important that other human resource practices such as performance appraisal be consistent with the cultural efforts outlined in this model. Carson, Cardy, and Dobbins (1992) argue that typical performance appraisals focus on personal outcome factors as opposed to the process factors that are stressed in this framework and that appraisals are therefore inconsistent with TQM. These authors offer some concrete recommendations (i.e., distinguishing between person and system factors, focusing on barriers to improvement, minimizing differences among employees, etc.) to limit negative reactions and develop a performance appraisal system consistent with TQM interventions.

Current reward systems also need examination to ensure they contribute to intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic rewards may negatively impact intrinsic motivation. However, recognition and appreciation are important in TQM (Deming, 1993) and can be designed to support empowerment. For example, at one company, employees who demonstrate success through innovation receive the "Walking Shoes Award" to symbolize the big step toward empowerment (Fleming, 1991).

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The key to achieving higher customer satisfaction is to commit to a comprehensive, integrated strategy to increase employee intrinsic motivation. Interventions and human resource functions must be structured to consistently enhance employee task assessments. The model presented here illustrates how specific change interventions, that correspond to the principles of TQM, can achieve employee empowerment, and how this empowerment leads to improved customer satisfaction. This model also provides a valuable basis for future research by including propositions that can be tested and refined so that TQM can become a solidly grounded management theory.

The TQM interventions suggested in this model present a great challenge to managers and practitioners and imply a necessarily long cultural change process. In order to accomplish this transition, managers need to recognize that there is no single intervention that will create empowerment. Training, teamwork, top management leadership, or reward programs used in isolation will not create empowerment. Instead, managers must simultaneously make several interventions that synergistically support employee empowerment. The model presented here provides a comprehensive framework and proposes how these interventions combine to increase customer satisfaction. In order to learn more about customer satisfaction, we must analyze interventions in terms of their influence on employee motivation and customer satisfaction. The framework and model presented in this paper provide a starting point for managers and researchers to begin to evaluate management interventions in this respect. This evaluation will provide managers with a better understanding of the factors that contribute to success in the customer-focused organization.

References

Bandura, A. 1977. "Self Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change." Psychological Review 84: 191-215.

Barbee, C., and V. Bott. 1991. "Customer Treatment as a Mirror of Employee Treatment." Advanced Management Journal 56: 27-32.

Bennis, W., and B. Nannus. 1985. Leaders. New York: Harper and Row.

Benson, P., J. Saraph, and R. Schroeder. 1991. "The Effects of Organizational Context on Quality Management: An Empirical Investigation." Management Science 37(9): 1107-1124.

Bhote, K. R. 1992. "The `Next Operation' is Your Customer." Supervisory Management 37(1): 8.

Byrne, J.A. 1992. "Paradigms for Postmodern Managers." Business Week (Reinventing America): 62-63.

Carson, K. P., R. Cardy, and G.H. Dobbins. 1992. "Upgrade the Employee Evaluation Process." Human Resource Magazine (November): 88-92.

Cole, R.E. 1989. "Learning from the Japanese." Management Review 69(9): 22-42.

Conger, J.A., and R.N. Kanungo. 1988. "The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice." Academy of Management Review 13: 471-482.

Dale, B.G., and K. Lightburn. 1992. "Continuous Quality Improvement: Why Some Organizations Lack Commitment." International Journal of Production Economics 27: 57-67.

Dean, J.W., and E.E. Bowen. 1994. "Management Theory and Total Quality: Improving Research and Practice Through Theory Development." Academy of Management Review 19: 392-418.

deCharms, R. 1968. Personal Causation. The Internal Affective Determinants of Behavior. New York: Academic Press.

DeMeyer, A., J. Nakane, J.G. Miller, and K. Ferdows. 1989. "Flexibility: The Next Competitive Battle the Manufacturing Futures Survey." Strategic Management Journal 10: 135-144.

Deming, W. E. 1993. The New Economics. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dobyns, L., and C. Crawford-Mason. 1991. Quality or Else. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Dumaine, B. 1990. "Who Needs a Boss?" Fortune (May 7): 52-56.

Eskildson, L. 1994: "Improving the Odds of TQM's Success." Quality Progress 27(4): 61-63.

Feldman, S. 1991. "Keep the Customer Satisfied-Inside and Out." Management Review 80: 58-60.

Ferdows, K., and A. DeMeyer. 1990. "Lasting Improvement in Manufacturing: In Search of a New Theory." Journal of Operations Management 9(2): 168-184.

Fleming, P.C. 1991. "Empowerment Strengthens the Rock." Management Review 80: 34-37.

Flynn, B.B., R. Schroeder, and S. Sakakibara. 1995. "Determinants of Quality Performance in High--And Low--Quality Plants." Quality, Management Journal 2(2): 8-25.

Ford, R.C., and M.D. Fotler. 1995. "Empowerment: A Matter of Degree." Academy of Management Executive 9(3): 21-28.

Garvin, D.A. 1986. "Quality Problems, Policies, and Attitudes in the United States and Japan: An Exploratory Study." Academy of Management Journal 29(4): 653-673.

Gitlow, H.S., and S.J. Gitlow. 1987. The Deming Guide to Quality and Competitive Position. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Goski, K.L., and M. Belfry. 1991. "Achieving Competitive Advantage Through Employee Empowerment." Employee Relations Today 18: 213-220.

Harrington, H. J. 1987. The Improvement Process. Milwaukee: Quality Press.

Imai, M. 1986. Kaizen. New York: Random House.

Johnson, G.C. 1991. "Empowering Employees." Canadian Business Review 18: 47-49.

--, and M.J. Daniel. 1991. "Customer Satisfaction Through Quality: TQM, Just Another Buzzword or the Key to Competitiveness in the 1990s." Canadian Business Review 18 (14): 12-15.

Juran, J.M. 1992. Juran on Quality by Design. New York: The Free Press.

Miller, R.W., and F.N. Pritchard. 1992. "Factors Associated with Workers' Inclination to Participate in an Employee Involvement Program." Group and Organization Management 17(4): 414-430.

Numerof, R.E., and M.N. Abrams. 1994. "How to Prevent the Coming Failure of Quality." Quality Progress 27(12): 93-97.

Pascoe, L.B. 1992. A Study of the Importance of Key Components of Total Quality Management Programs in American Manufacturing Firms. An unpublished dissertation, United States International University, San Diego.

Plumb, S.E. 1992. "Ford's AODE Plant Breaks Murphy's Law." Ward's Auto World (August): 42.

Ramberg, J.S. 1994. "Thought Revolution or Trojan Horse?" OR/MS Today 21(4): 18-24.

Reger, R.K., L.T. Gustafson, S.M. DeMarie and J.V. Mullane. 1994. "Reframing the Organization: Why Implementing Total Quality is Easier Said Than Done." Academy of Management Review 19: 565-584.

Saraph, J.V., P.G. Benson, and R.G. Schroeder. 1989. "An Instrument for Measuring the Critical Factors of Quality Management." Decision Sciences 20 (4): 810-829.

Schneider, B. 1980. "The Service Organization: Climate is Crucial." Organizational Dynamics 9(2): 52-65.

--, and D. Bowen. 1985. "Employee and Customer Perceptions of Service in Banks: Replication and Extension." Journal of Applied Psychology 70(3): 423-433.

Tenner, A.R., and I.J. DeToro. 1992. Total Quality Management. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Thomas, K.W., and B.A. Velthouse. 1990. "Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An "Interpretive" Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation." Academy of Management Review 15: 666-681.

Tornow, W.W., and J.W. Wiley. 1991. "Service Quality and Management Practices: A Look at Employee Attitudes, Customer Satisfaction, and Bottom-line Consequences." Human Resource Planning 14(2): 105-115.

Tyman, W.G. 1988. "An Empirical Investigation of a Cognitive Model of Empowerment." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.

Wellins, R.S. 1992. "Building a Self-directed Work Team." Training and Development 46(12): 24-28.