Indian culture and the culture for TQM: A comparison

Madhu Ranjan Kumar, DBA student, Graduate School of Management, Southern Cross
University, madhu_ranjan@yahoo.com

Shankar Sankaran, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Management, 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

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

1
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 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

2
 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 understood and juxtaposed against a

countrys 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

3
India based on these four dimensions and one additional dimension of associative

thinking-abstractive thinking. The model is shown in Figure 1.

INTERNAL WORK CULTURE

Descriptive Prescriptive
assumption about assumption about the
human nature principles that ought to
govern human conduct
External Locus of
control Passive and
reactive stand
Limited and fixed
potential Moralism

Past & Present Authoritarian &

orientation paternalistic

Short-Term Context dependent

perspective

Figure 1 Characteristics of internal work culture of organizations in developing countries

in the context of their socio-cultural environment

Source: Kanungo and Mendonca (1996).

4
 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
Uncertainty Low High
Low Tendency to focus on individual -
avoidance workers. Training of workers
emphasised. Responsibility is with the
workers
High Tendency to focus on routines and Tendency to focus on leaders,
procedures to be followed by workers. leadership and management.
Training of workers emphasised. Responsibility is with the
Responsibility is in the system leaders.
Table 1 Approach for TQM implementation as a function of power distance and

uncertainty avoidance

Source: Lagrosen (2002).

5
 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 & 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, 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

6
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:

(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

7
 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 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.

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

Hofstedes dimension of power distance emerged as a dominant theme, collectivism,

8
masculinity and uncertainty avoidance did not appear at the top of managers 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-existence of

global and local in Indians 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 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).

9
 (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:

(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.

10
 (ii) Indians value work if it is part of a positive personalised relationship (Sinha

1995). Indians possess an 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 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

11
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 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

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

12
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, 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

13
generates, hierarchy can facilitate TQM implementation if the boss-subordinate

relationship is 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 teachers name even decades after he/she passes out from school

/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

14
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 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 nave. 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 information power and expert power among the subordinates towards their boss.

This, coupled with a subordinates strong existing tendency to comply with their bosss

instruction because of their socially induced dependence relationship with the boss,

makes the subordinates go for the TQM change process without any resistance.

15
 (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 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

facilitated by transformational leadership (Hill, Hazlett & Meegan 2001; Reed, Lemak &

Mero 2002) of which individualised consideration is a factor (Bass 1990). Therefore,

16
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 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

17
in an organisation nurture his/her subordinates. This nurturance then acquires the

connotation of benevolent 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 leaders 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 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 leaders nurturance of the subordinates. Repeated and multi-

pronged shots of nurturance leads to the development of group identity in which the

individuals identity and importance gets de-emphasized. The behaviour profile

developed in this group gradually morphs into a collectivistic social norm for the group.

18
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 subordinates. Further, because of the reciprocation of nurturance by status

consciousness, this team can also be more lasting than the Western team(s).

19
 nurturance

power distance

formal fraternal reporting relationship

(whether functional, matrix or organic)

stage 1

Leaders ( no Team Team Team

individual A B C
identity)

Followers (no
stage 2 individual
identity)

A B C

end objectives

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

and nurturance in Indian culture fraternal relationship in Western
culture

Figure 2 Development of groups in Indian culture and teams in Western culture

20
 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 Japans success in TQM is an aberration. The

explanation given above shows how in the TQM movement, the Japanese have 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 ones 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.

Narsimhan, the President of Sundaram Clayton which was the first Indian company to get

21
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 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

22
finer dynamics of hierarchy and collectivism explained in this paper so as not to implant

a Western model in an Indian situation.

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.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1997), Full Range Leadership Development, Manual for the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, Palo Alto, California.

23
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-?

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.

24
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.

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), Cultures 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.

25
Khoo, H.H. & Tan, K.C. (2003), Managing for quality in the USA and Japan:

differences between MBNQA, DP and JQA, The 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.

Nakamura, H. (1964), Ways of thinking of Eastern People: India, China, Tibet and Japan,

East-West Centre Press, Honululu.

26
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.

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.

27
Sekhar, R.C. (2001), Trends in ethics and styles of leadership, Business Ethics: A

European Review, Vol 10 No 4, pp. 360-363.

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.

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.

28
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, 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.

29
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.

30