Total quality management (TQM) is usually presented as a proven “win‐win” solution to the problems of private and public sector organizations. However, actual TQM programmes (under a variety of names) have a poor track record in their own terms and a strong faddish appearance. Despite the record and the sharp disagreements among quality gurus, unions are frequently presented with finished programmes requiring major union and employee concessions. Further, despite TQM’s claimed concern for the welfare, dignity, and creative input of employees, the reality of TQM is a model which places most employees last. Beneath the rhetoric of many TQM programmes is a system of management control and unappealing work organization best described as “Management‐by‐stress”. Unions need to understand the basic TQM themes, examine their impact on employees and their unions, and propose alternatives which start with basic social needs.

This paper discusses quality evaluation of health sciences mentoring programmes. The discussion highlights the way in which perceptions of what constitutes quality shape evaluative purposes. Potential tensions between the evaluative purposes of various stakeholders are brought to the fore. To this end, the discussion explores the ways in which accountability shapes the evaluative purposes of funders and how the desire for programme knowledge and development frames the evaluative purposes of academics. Various approaches to programme evaluation are examined. The potential of reflective practice as a tool for examining quality for knowledge and development of programmes is considered. The paper concludes by presenting a framework for evaluating various aspects of quality in mentoring programmes.