Middle Management and Quality Control: Strategies for Obstructionism

Abstract

Quality control as developed in Japan is diametrically opposed to the traditional American corporate practices stemming from the so-called "Taylor scientific methods" which is based on a clearly defined hierarchy. American corporations attempting to implement quality control programs often run into difficulties with managers who perceive the democratic principles of quality control as a threat to their authority. This situation is particularly acute when full participation by middle and lower level managers has not been enlisted prior to implementation of the program and neither procedures nor goals have been clearly spelled out. In this study, the responses of middle and lower level managers under these conditions were observed. Several strategies emerged that were designed to minimize the perceived threat of quality control, including control of program activities and restricting employees' access to these activities. These covert and overt obstructionist tactics demonstrate the importance of careful planning of quality control programs before implementation and a willingness to make the radical organizational changes required by quality control if it is to be successful in American corporations.

The nature and dynamics of counter-implementation in strategic marketing: a propositional inventory

“…Such variables included interactions and sanctions in an attempt to understand the diversity of implementation mechanisms within an organization. A number of studies have emphasized employee-centred issues in the discussion of context and incorporated management style and skills, employee perceptions and attitudes towards planning and a sense of priority, commitment and political in uences (Greenley, 1988;Connors and Romberg, 1991;Frankwick et al, 1994;Piercy and Morgan, 1994).…”

“…The literature on counter-implementation suggests that there are certain behaviours that aim at sabotaging implementation efforts and that these behaviours are deliberate and subversive in nature (Guth and MacMillan, 1986;Connors and Romberg, 1991;Harris, 1996). Resistance in this case takes the form of managers putting little effort into implementation if they believe they have a low probability of performing successfully and performance has a low probability of achieving the desired outcome or the desired outcome does not satisfy individual goals and, hence, self-interests (Guth and MacMillan, 1986).…”

“…The suggestion is that middle managers with low or negative commitment to strategies formulated by senior management create signi cant obstacles to effective implementation. A number of tactics for obstructing implementation may be deployed, for example withholding information from line staff, dominating meetings with personal agendas, refusing to consider worker contributions and, in some cases, cancelling meetings that are designed for imparting information to co-workers, attempts to divert resources, goal de ection techniques, outright con ict and sabotage (Connors and Romberg, 1991;Harris, 1996;Agocs, 1997). In a synthesis of the literature of counterproductive behaviour, Harris and Ogbonna (2002) noted a number of terms and phrases that are used for referring to such behaviour.…”

“…The concept of 'counter-implementation' emerges as a recurring barrier to implementation and is viewed most often as behaviour that deliberately attempts to subvert such efforts (Guth and MacMillan, 1986;Connors and Romberg, 1991). Despite studies on the types of employee resistance in the labour process literature (Knights and McCabe, 1998) counterimplementation in the strategic management and marketing literature is given limited treatment.…”

Discretion is the better part of value: Five research-based rules for ensuring that strategy implementers implement

“…This weakness is particular disappointing since a huge amount of literature exists that speaks, directly or indirectly, to the challenge of strategy implementation. That literature is, however, fragmented across many academic domains including, among others, organisational learning, 6 organisational structure, 7,8 control mechanisms, 9 -11 communication, 12 organisational culture 13 -15 market orientation, 16,17 management self-interest 18,19 and, as discussed in this article, motivation and organisational commitment.…”