Search results

This paper seeks to assess the hierarchical tendencies among direct recruit managers, managers promoted from supervisory grade and supervisors in a large bureaucracy in India using an instrument developed in India.

The instrument assesses hierarchy on three dimensions of “tendency for personalized relationship with superiors”, “status consciousness with superiors” and “dependence on superiors”.

The paper concludes that in the Indian bureaucracy, 15 years of liberalization and more than 50 years of democracy have not brought about differential hierarchical tendencies between younger employees who joined the bureaucracy less than two years ago, and older employees who joined the bureaucracy roughly 25 years ago. Employees in Indian bureaucracy continue to be dependent on their superiors and continue to be conscious of the status of their superiors. However, they do not feel the necessity of developing a personalised relationship with their superiors. Further, employees exposed to higher managerial responsibilities are less dependent on their superiors and less conscious of the status of their superiors than employees exposed to supervisor level responsibilities.

The paper provides empirical evidence to managers dealing with Indian bureaucracy about which dimensions of hierarchy need to be carefully handled by them. It also indicates the extent to which the Indian bureaucrats will be amenable to participative management practices espoused in the West.

The paper makes an in‐depth empirical study of the well‐established hierarchical nature of Indians in an Indian bureaucracy. Thereby, this paper identifies the specific dimensions of hierarchy that are still prevalent in the Indian bureaucracy.

This paper seeks to argue against the conventional wisdom in the current TQM literature that hierarchy is not conducive for TQM. It aims to identify the cultural dynamics that can aid TQM implementation in a hierarchical country like India.

The paper reflects on the existing literature on culture and TQM and develops a mechanism that explains why hierarchy hinders TQM implementation in Western culture and how it can support TQM implementation in Indian culture.

In a people oriented culture like those of Japan and India, nurturance is the juice that sustains hierarchy that finally morphs into collectivism. In these social systems, there 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 organisational 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.

This paper shows how the cultural aspect of TQM implementation should be handled in a high power distance country like India.

The paper identifies the two Indian cultural aspects that can facilitate TQM implementation in India notwithstanding the hierarchical Indian values.

This paper aims at developing a set of guidelines for potential inside action researchers (IARrs).

Action research was done in three units of Indian Railways. At each unit two IARrs were engaged. The six IARrs and the author (also an IARr at one of the units) used reflection during action and reflection after action to conduct the action research.

The paper shows that IARrs must carry good credibility, relationships have to be continually worked, ethical clearance must be dynamic to the emerging situations and the IARrs should not emphasize the pattern of their previous interactions with the members of the research world.

The research is based on the action research done in manufacturing units within Indian bureaucracy. The generalization of findings to other organizational set up was not verified.

It brings out specific “dos” and “don'ts” for a prospective IARr.

This paper contributes to the action research method by bringing out new issues faced by IARrs while conducting insider action research in large organizations. With respect to large‐scale change, it brings out that perception of shared world among IARrs facilitates large scale change. Middle managers are better suited as IARr than top managers and an ab‐initio large scale planning is not necessary to cause a large scale change in the long run.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the commonalities and differences between the Deming Prize (DP) and the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA).

A qualitative comparison is made of the changes in the Deming Prize and the MBNQA from 1992 to 2005. In the process, the paper arrives at their current commonalities and differences.

Concludes that during the last 13 years the emphasis of both the Deming Prize and the MBNQA has shifted from technical quality to excellence of all organizational processes. They have moved towards a common understanding of “good leadership” and an appreciation of systems thinking. However, they have maintained their basic difference in the sense that, while inherent in the DP are consulting and guidance by the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) over a longer timeframe, MBNQA begins with a more self‐ assessment approach and is more competitive in spirit. Further, since its inception, while the MBNQA has been very public with its entire award process, the DP has made its award process public only since 2003.

Prior experience in TQM is considered desirable if an organization is to reap full benefit from the Deming Prize.

Compares the changes in the understanding of quality by two major awards in a common time period. It shows that, in spite of all its mutations, the DP maintains its basic congruence with the Deming's philosophy. It also brings out the differences in the assessment methods of the Deming Prize and the MBNQA.