Quality managers, authority and leadership

Abstract

Abstract.This paper reports a research finding that some Quality Managers in the construction industry are attempting to institute Total Quality (TQ) Management. Having established Quality Assurance (QA) systems, these managers have realised that the benefits to be gained from this bureaucratic approach are limited. They now aim to transform the culture of the industry, making it less adversarial and more customer centred. Using an sociological analysis based on the forms of legitimation of power identified by Max Weber, the institutional situation of Quality Managers is examined and their consequent ability to introduce innovation is assessed. Weber suggests that there are three forms of authority: traditional, charismatic and rational. These are considered in the light of some modern organisation theory and with reference to the particular problem of cultural change. It is argued that managers have the best hope of successfully introducing TQ when they can establish a measure of charismatic authority. This is consistent with the centrality given to the concept of leadership by writers on TQ. What this might mean in practice is investigated through an account of the process of setting up a quality circle.

The realities of applying total quality management in the construction industry

“…The competitive bidding arrangement subscribed to by most countries intrinsically eschews long-term ownercontractor relationships while at the same time attaching an overbearing importance to low bids (Burati et al, 1992). It is not surprising that those delegated to implement TQM in their construction companies face an uphill challenge (McCabe et al, 1998) in the midst of continuing intellectual discourse and prescriptive advice (Seymour and Low, 1990;Burati et al, 1992;Low and Peh, 1996;Arditi and Gunaydin, 1997;Shammas-Toma et al, 1998;Winch et al, 1998).…”

Taking leadership research into future

“…The following references are the empirical studies selected for the review presented in this paper: Anderson (1992); Bresnen (1986); Bryman et al (1987); Bossink (2004); Butler and Chinowsky (2006); Carr et al (2002); Chan and Chan (2005); Cheung et al (2001); Dainty et al (2005); Debrah and Ofori (2005); Djebarni (1996); Dulaimi (2005); Dulaimi and Langford (1999); Fellows et al (2003); Fraser (1999); Fraser (2000); Giritli and Topcu‐Oraz (2004); Lee et al (2005); Liu and Fang (2006); Low and Chuan (2006); Low and Chuvessiriporn (1997); Low and Leong (2001); Low and Lee (1997); Low and May (1997); Makilouko (2004); McCabe et al (1998); Muir and Langford (1994); Muller and Turner (2007); Mustapha and Naoum (1998); Nam and Tatum (1997); Noypayak and Speece (1998); Ogunlana et al (2002b); Odusami et al (2003); Odusami (2002); Ogunlana et al (2002a); Ozorovskaja et al (2007); Powl and Skitmore (2005); Rowlinson et al (1993); Seymour and Elhaleem (1991); Shoura and Singh (1998); Sheu and Hong (2007); Skipper and Bell (2006a,b); Skipper and Bell (2008); Toor and Ofori (2008c); Tuilett (1996); Walker and Newcombe (2000); Wong et al (2007); and Zimmerer and Yasin (1998).…”

Repertory Grid Methodology to Research Tacit Knowledge in Construction

“…Australia is more known for non-prescriptive industry-led change that is left to individual choice, and thus innovation and industrial change emerge because of self-regulated market demand and competitive pressure e.g., where the cost of no change versus new technology adoption may be higher that effort of changing. Exploring quality and buildability concepts is itself problematic in terms of choosing a suitable methodology [5], and this is addressed in the next section. Our focus will be upon quality and buildability.…”